JS 

:>    ISM 
lAttL? 


UC-NRLF 


N 


H  ISTOR  Y 


OF     THE 


(Office  of  tlje  Corporation  Counsel 


THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


With  a  Resume  of  the  Annual    Report  of 
the    Law    Department   for  the  Year  1906 


WILLIAM      B.    ELLISON 

Corporation  Counsel 


Compiled  by 
JOHN    H.  GREENER 

Assistant   Chief  Clerk 


New  Yobk: 

^f ARTIN    C.    BROWN    COMPANY,   PRINTERS   AND   STATIONERS, 

Nos.  49  TO  57   Park  Place. 

1907 


H  ISTORY 


0^tt  of  tfje  Corporation  Counsel 


THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


With  a  Resume  of  the  Annual    Report  of 
the    Law    Department   for  the  Year  1906 


WILLIAM      B.    ELLISON 
Corporation  Counsel 


Compiled  by 
JOHN    H.  GREENER 

Assistant   Chief  Clerk 


Nkw  Yobk: 

MARTIN   B,   BROWN    COMPANY,   PRINTERS   AND   STATIONERS, 

Nos.  49  TO  57   Park  Place. 

1907 


rtARTIN  B.BROWN 
*   PRESS* 


•    •   •  •  .••  • 


INDEX. 


A    HISTORY    OF    THE    OFFICE    OF    THE    CORPORATION 

COUNSEL    5 

Corporation  Counsels  of  New  York  City  for  the  Past  Fifty  Years 5 

Corporation  Counsels  of  the  Former  City  of  Brooklyn 14 

Dutch  Records  of  New  Amsterdam,  1609  to  1664 15 

The  First  Lawyer  in  New  York  City,  1653 22 

Early  Colonial  Records,  1664  to  1686 22 

The  Recorder  as  Chief  Counsel  for  the  City,  1686  to  1800 23 

Earliest  Records  of  the  Retainer  of  Other  Counsel,  1691  to  1776 25 

The  Revolutionary  Period,   1776  to  1783 35 

The  Post-Revolutionary  Period,  1783  to  1800 35 

The  First  "Corporation  Attorneys,"   1801  to   1839 35 

Office  of  "Counsel  to  the  Corporation"  Created,  1839  to  1849 40 

The  First  "Counsel  to  the  Corporation" 42 

The  "Law  Department"  Created  by  the  Legislature,  1849  to  1856 46 

The  New  York  Office  in  1856 48 

The  Office  as  a  Stepping  Stone  to  the  Bench 49 

A  Famous  Assistant — David  J.  Dean 50 

Prominent  Lawyers  Formerly  Associated  with  the  Office 51 

Long  Service  of  Some  of  the  Present  Employees 54 

"Counselor   Nolan" 55 

Conditions  Prior  to  Consolidation  of  the  Greater  New  York 55 

The    Greater    New    York 56 

Growth  of  Business  Since  Consolidation,   1898  to  1^7 57 

PRESENT   ORGANIZATION    OF   THE   DEPARTMENT 58 

The   Main  Office 59 

Removal  of  Offices 59 

The  New  Hall  of  Records 60 

The  Reorganization  of  Main  Office 61 

Divisions   and    Personnel   of   Main   Office 64 

The    Brooklyn    Office ^2 


M202976 


4  INDEX. 

PAGE 

Branch  Offices  in  Other  Boroughs 73 

The   Bureau   of   Street  Openings 74 

The   Bureau   of    Penalties 'J^ 

The  Bureau  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes 79 

The  Tenement   House  Branch   Office 82 

Matters  Relating  to  the  Water  Supply 84 

REPORT   FOR   1906 87 

Schedule  i.    Actions  and   Proceedings   Pending  at  the  Close  of  the 

Year 87 

Schedule  2.    Actions  and  Proceedings  Beg^un  and  Terminated  During 

the    Year..; 88 

Schedules.    Court  Work  During  the  Year 89 

Schedule  4.  Judgments,  Orders  and  Decrees  Entered  During  the  Year  91 
Schedule  5.    Payments   Made   from   Each   Appropriation   During  the 

Year    92 

Schedule  6.     Moneys  Received  During  the  Year 93 

Schedule  7.     Contracts,  etc.,  Approved  During  the  Year 94 

Schedule  8.     Opinions   Rendered  During  the  Year 94 

A  General  Summary 96 

Needs  of  the  Department 97 

Conclusion    100 


REPORT   OF   THE  CORPORATION   COUNSEL. 


Law  Department, 
Office  of  the  Corporation   Counsel, 
New  York,  May  15,  1907. 

Hon.  George  B.  McClellan, 

Mayor: 

Sir — Pursuant  to  section  1544  of  the  Greater  New  York 
Charter,  I  submit  the  following  report  of  the  transactions  of  the 
Law  Department  for  the  year  and  quarter  ending  on  December 
31,  1906. 

HISTORY    OF    DEPARTMENT. 

Before  entering  on  my  rej)ort  of  the  work  of  the  year,  I  wish 
to  review  briefly  the  history  of  the  Law  Department.  Mr.  And- 
rew T.  Campbell,  the  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Department,  is  just  now 
completing  his  fiftieth  year  of  active  service,  and  it  seems  a  par- 
ticularly fitting  occasion  to  look  back  over  the  great  changes 
that  have  occurred  during  that  period,  and  to  give  some  idea  of 
the  origin  and  history  of  the  Law  Department. 

Corporation  Counsels  for  Past  Fifty  Years. 
The  office  of  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  of  The  City  of  New 
York  has  existed  in  some  form  for  over  two  hundred  years. 
Down  to  the  time  of  the  creation  of  the  Greater  City  of  New 
York,  on  January  i,  1898,  the  head  of  the  Law  Department  of  the 
old  City  of  New  York  was  known  as  the  "Counsel  to  the  Cor- 
poration." At  the  time  of  consolidation  the  title  was  changed  to 
"Corporation  Counsel."  The  persons  who  have  held  the  office 
during  Mr.  Campbell's  fifty  years  of  service  are  as  follows: 

RICHARD    BUSTEED,    appointed    September,    1856. 
Elected    in    the  fall    of    1856,    while  Fernando  Wood  was 


Mayor,  to  serve  three  years.  Mr.  Busteed  was  the  first 
elective  Counsel  to  the  Corporation.  The  office  had  always 
been  filled  by  appointment,  but  by  the  Charter  amendment 
of  April  14,  1857,  it  was  made  elective.  The  salary  of  the 
office  was  $10,000  per  annum,  and  $8,000  was  allowed  for 
Assistants  and  Clerk  hire.  Mr.  Busteed  reappointed  George 
H.  Purser  as  Corporation  Attorney  at  a  salary  of  $5,000  and 
Charles  A.  May  as  Public  Administrator  at  a  salary  of 
$1,250.  In  1858  Mr.  May  was  succeeded  by  Thomas  C. 
Fields.  "Dick"  Busteed,  as  he  was  popularly  known,  en- 
listed as  a  Union  soldier  in  the  Civil  War,  and  made  a  gal- 
lant record,  and  at  the  close  of  the  war  had  reached  the 
grade  of  brigadier-general.  He  was  afterward  appointed  a 
Federal  Judge  for  one  of  the  Southern  States. 

GREENE  C.  BRONSON,  elected  for  three  years  from 
January  i,  i860.  Mr.  Bronson  had  held  the  position  of  At- 
torney-General of  New  York  State  from  1829  to  1835,  ^"^ 
had  been  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  from  1836  to  I852, 
It  was  during  the  administrations  of  Mr.  Bronson  and  Mr. 
Develin  that  the  City  and  country  at  large  was  occupied  with 
the  great  Civil  War.  Mr.  Bronson  had  two  Assistants: 
Henry  H.  Anderson  and  William  C.  Trull,  the  latter  of 
whom  is  still  living.  Mr.  Bronson  appointed  George  C. 
Genet  Corporation  Attorney  and  Stephen  Russell  Public  Ad- 
ministrator. 

JOHN  E.  DEVELIN,  elected  for  three  years  from  Janu- 
ary I,  1863.  George  Opdyke  was  Mayor  at  this  time.  Dur- 
ing Mr.  Develin's  term  of  office  there  were  three  thousand 
suits  commenced  against  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  the 
City,  arising  out  of  the  draft  riots  of  1863,  and  an  extra  al- 
lowance of  $2,000  was  given  for  services  in  these  cases,  mak- 
ing the  total  salary  of  the  Corporation  Counsel  $12,000.  The 
riot  suits  were  handled  by  Mr.  Howard  J.  Forker,  an  assis- 
tant in  the  office  at  that  time,  who  is  now  a  Justice  of  the 
Court  of  Special  Sessions  in   Brooklyn.     Mr.   Develin  ap- 


pointed  N.  Hill  Fowler  as  Corporation  Attorney  and  Robert 
B.  Bradford  as  Public  Administrator.  The  salary  of  the 
latter  position  was  increased  to  $5,000  in  1864.  Mr.  Brad- 
ford was  succeeded  by  George  Shea.  At  the  close  of  his 
term  of  office  Mr.  Develin  associated  himself  with  Charles  E. 
Miller  and  formed  the  well-known  law  firm  of  Develin  & 
Miller. 

RICHARD  O'GORMAN,  elected  for  three  years  from 
January  i,  1866.  Resigned  December  2,  1872.  Mr."0'Gor- 
man  was  the  last  elective  Counsel  to  the  Corporation.  He 
was  a  distinguished  Irish  patriot,  and  of  great  renown  as  an 
orator.  He  became  a  Justice  of  the  Superior  Court  of  The 
City  of  New  York,  and  later  of  the  Supreme  Court.  By  the 
Charter  amendment  of  April  5,  1870,  the  term  of  office  was 
made  four  years,  and  the  power  to  remove  the  Corporation 
Counsel  was  vested  in  the  Governor  of  the  State.  Mr. 
O'Gorman  was  allowed  $12,000  for  Assistants,  etc.  David 
J.  Dean,  who  will  be  mentioned  again  later,  was  an  Assistant 
under  Mr.  0'Gorman.  Martin  T.  McMahon  was  appointed 
Corporation  Attorney  and  Gratz  Nathan  First  Assistant. 
Gen.  McMahon  was  subsequently  elected  a  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  General  Sessions.  From  1866  to  1869,  Henry  E. 
Davies,  Jr.,  a  son  of  Judge  Henry  E.  Davies,  who  had  risen  to 
the  grade  of  Major-General  in  the  Union  Army,  held  the 
position  of  Public  Administrator  in  the  Department.  In  1869 
Thomas  C.  Fields  was  appointed  Corporation  Attorney  and 
Andrew  J.  Rogers  Public  Administrator. 

E.  DELAFIELD  SMITH,  appointed  by  Mayor  Oakey 
Hall,  December  2,  1872,  to  fill  the  unexpired  term  of  Rich- 
ard O'Gorman.  He  was  removed  by  Governor  Tilden  in 
1875.  The  Charter  amendment  of  April  30,  1873,  gave  to  the 
Mayor  the  right  to  appoint  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation, 
with  the  approval  of  the  Board  of  .A.ldermen.  The  salary 
was  fixed  at  $15,000  and  the  term  of  office  at  four  years.    An- 


8 

other  bureau  of  the  Law  Department  was  created  by  this  re- 
vision of  the  Charter,  the  head  of  which  was  called  the  "At- 
torney for  the  Collection  of  Personal  Taxes."  John  H. 
White  was  appointed  as  head  of  the  new  bureau,  and  Mr. 
Smith  also  appointed  H.  M,  Ruggles  as  Corporation  Attor- 
ney and  Isaac  Dayton  Public  Administrator.  During  the 
administrations  of  Mr.  O'Gorman  and  Mr.  Smith,  the  City 
was  greatly  disturbed  by  the  "Tweed  Ring"  exposures.  Ac- 
tions were  commenced  by  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation 
against  William  M.  Tweed,  A.  Oakey  Hall,  Richard  B.  Con- 
nolly, and  others,  and  in  some  of  these  cases  judgments  were 
entered  by  default  for  millions  of  dollars,  but  the  criminal 
prosecutions  of  Tweed  and  the  other  members  of  the  ring 
were  handled  by  the  great  Charles  O'Conor  and  other  coun- 
sel who  were  associated  with  him.  It  was  during  this  period 
that  the  City  and  County  of  New  York  were  consolidated 
into  one  municipality  by  chapter  304  of  the  Laws  of  1874. 

WILLIAM  C.  WHITNEY,  appointed  to  fill  the  unex- 
pired term  of  E.  Delafield  Smith,  August  9;  1875,  by  Mayor 
Wickham.  Reappointed  to  succeed  himself  December  7, 
I876,  for  four  years,  by  Mayor  Wickham.  Reappointed  to 
succeed  himself  December  11,  1880,  by  Mayor  Cooper.  Re- 
signed November  8,  1882.  Francis  Lynde  Stetson  was  an 
Assistant  under  Mr.  Whitney.  The  many  actions  arising 
from  the  "Tweed  Ring"  transactions  were  disposed  of  dur- 
ing this  period.  It  is  probable  that  William  C.  Whitney  will 
be  longest  remembered  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  during 
President  Cleveland's  first  administration.  Mr.  Whitney 
was  the  creator  of  the  modernized  navy  of  our  country,  and 
as  such  his  fame  will  endure  forever.  Mr.  Whitney  was  the 
first  Corporation  Counsel  to  recognize  the  necessity  for  spe- 
cializing the  work  of  the  office,  and  he  reorganized  the  entire 
Department  along  this  line,  assigning  all  litigation  of  a 
special  character  to  a  particular  assistant.  The  "Consolida- 
tion Act"  of  1882  was  passed  during  Mr.  Whitney's  term  of 
office,  and  the  salary  of  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  was 


reduced  by  that  act  to  $12,000.  Mr.  Whitney  appointed  Wil- 
liam A.  Boyd  Corporation  Attorney,  Algernon  S.  Sullivan 
Public  Administrator  and  Edward  T.  Gale  Attorney  for  the 
Collection  of  Personal  Taxes. 

GEORGE  P.  ANDREWS,  appointed  November  8,  1882,  to 
succeed  William  C.  Whitney,  by  Mayor  Edson.  Resigned  May 
31,  1884,  to  take  office  as  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Mr. 
Andrews  was  an  Assistant  under  Mr.  Whitney,  and  continued 
the  reorganization  of  the  department  commenced  by  his  pre- 
decessor. He  surrounded  himself  with  a  staff  of  able  assist- 
ants, among  whom  were  David  J.  Dean,  E.  Henry  Lacombe, 
.Charles  Blandy.  Francis  L.  Wellman,  Thomas  P.  Wickes,  Ar- 
thur H.  Masten.  John  J.  Townsend,  Jr.,  Charles  P.  Miller, 
Hugh  L.  Cole  and  Wilmot  T.  Cox.  Mr.  Andrews  reappointed 
William  A.  Boyd  Corporation  Attorney  and  Algernon  S.  Sul- 
livan Public  Administrator.  He  apjx)inted  Charles  S.  Beards- 
ley  Attorney  for  the  Collection  of  Personal  Taxes. 

E.  HENRY  LACOMBE,  appointed  June  i,  1884,  to  suc- 
ceed George  P.  Andrews,  by  Mayor  Edson.  Reappointed  by 
Mayor  Grace  June  2,  1885.  Resigned  June  20,  1887,  to  take 
his  place  as  Judge  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court,  Southern 
District  of  New  York.  Mr.  Lacombe  was  also  an  Assistant  un- 
der William  C.  Whitney  and  George  P.  Andrews,  and  had 
much  of  the  same  talent  for  administration.  He  perfected  the 
organization  of  the  office,  commenced  by  Mr.  Whitney  and  con- 
tinued by  Judge  Andrews,  and  many  parts  of  the  system  de- 
vised at  that  time  continue  with  but  few  changes  to  the  pres- 
ent time.  In  1885  he  prepared  and  transmitted  to  the  Mayor 
the  first  printed  quarterly  and  annual  reports  of  the  depart- 
ment, and  the  form  of  reports  adopted  at  that  time  is  followed 
with  very  little  variation  at  present.  Mr.  Lacombe  reappointed 
William  A.  Boyd  Corporation  Attorney  and  Charles  S.  Beards- 
ley  Attorney  for  the  Collection  of  Personal  Taxes.  He  ap- 
pointed Richard  J.  Morrisson  Public  Administrator.  Judge 
Lacombe  is  the  oldest  living  ex-Corporation  Counsel. 


10 

MORGAN  J.  O'BRIEN,  appointed  July  i,  1887,  by  Mayor 
Hewitt,  to  succeed  E.  Henry  Lacombe,  Resigned  December 
31,  1887,  to  take  office  as  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Mr. 
O'Brien  made  no  changes  in  the  heads  of  the  three  bureaus 
of  the  department.  He  held  the  office  of  Corporation  Counsel 
for  only  six  months,  but  his  subsequent  record  as  a  Justice  of 
the  Supreme  Court  and  member  and  Presiding  Justice  of  the 
Appellate  Division,  First  Department,  is  too  well  known  to  re- 
quire any  comment  here. 

HENRY  R:  BEEKMAN,  appointed  to  succeed  Morgan  J. 
O'Brien,  January  i,  1888,  by  Mayor  Hewitt ;  term  expired 
May  I,  1889.  Mr.  Beekman  reappointed  William  A.  Boyd 
Corporation  Attorney,  Richard  J.  Morrisson  Public  Admin- 
istrator, and  Charles  S.  Beardsley  Attorney  for  the  Collection 
of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes.  He  was  elected  Judge  of  the  Su- 
perior Court  in  the  fall  of  1894,  and  in  1896  became  a  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  Mr.  Beekman,  both  as  Corporation 
Counsel  and  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  is  well  remembered 
as  a  profound  scholar,  an  indefatigable  worker,  and  a  great 
lawyer  and  judge.  His  death,  in  December,  1900,  was  a 
grievous  loss  to  the  bar  and  bench  of  this  State. 

WILLIAM  H.  CLARK,  appointed  May  24,  1889.  to  suc- 
ceed Henry  Rl  Beekman,  by  Mayor  Grant.  Reappointed  to 
succeed  himself  May  2,  1893,  by  Mayor  Gilroy.  Mr.  Clark's 
term  of  office  expired  December  31.  1894,  but  he  held  over  un- 
der the  administration  of  Mayor  Strong  until  the  appointment 
of  his  successor,  Mr.  Scott.  It  was  during  his  term  of  office 
that  the  great  "Aqueduct  Cases,"  brought  by  O'Brien  &  Clark 
and  others,  to  recover  millions  of  dollars  for  extra  work  on  the 
new  Croton  aqueduct,  were  tried,  and  won  by  the  City.  Those 
cases  were  handled  for  the  City  by  James  C.  Carter,  Elihu 
Root,  Austen  G.  Fox,  and  Wallace  Macfarlane,  whom  Mr. 
Clark  had  retained  as  special  counsel.  Mr.  Clark  appointed 
Louis  Sleekier  Corporation  Attorney,  Cha:rles  E.  Lydecker 
Public  Administrator,  and  Henry  BischoflF,  Jr.,  Attorney  for 


1 1 

the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes.  Mr.  Bischoff 
was  elected  a  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court,  and  subsequently 
became  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court.  He  was  succeeded  by 
Johiv  G.  H.  Meyers  as  Attorney  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears 
of  Personal  Taxes,  and  in  189 1  Louis  Hanneman  was  appointed 
Corporation  Attorney  to  succeed  Louis  Steckler.  By  chapter 
158  of  the  Laws  of  1893,  a  new  bureau  was  added  to  the  Law 
Department,  to  be  known  as  the  "Bureau  of  Street  Openings," 
and  John  P.  Dunn  was  appointed  Assistant  in  charge.  During 
1893  William  M.  Hoes  was  appointed  Public  Administrator, 
and  he  held  the  office  until  May,  1895,  when  an  act  of  the 
Legislature  took  effect  by  which  the  office  of  the  Public  Ad- 
ministrator was  separated  from  the  Law  Department  and 
made  a  bureau  of  the  Surrogate's  Court.  Mr.  Clark  resumed 
the  practice  of  law  at  the  end  of  his  second  term  of  office,  but 
died  soon  afterward. 

FRANCIS  M.  SCOTT,  appointed  February  13,  1895,  to 
succeed  William  H.  Clark,  by  Mayor  Strong.  Reappointed 
April  30,  1897.  Elected  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
fall  of  1897.  Mr.  Scott  had  been  an  Assistant  in  the  office  un- 
der Mr.  Andrews  and  Mr.  Lacombe.  As  Counsel  to  the  Cor- 
poration he  took  a  very  active  part  in  the  litigation  of  the  de- 
partment, arguing  personally  almost  all  of  the  appeals  in  the 
Court  of  Appeals.  He  is  now  one  of  the  Justices  of  the  Ap- 
pellate Division,  First  Department.  Mr.  Scott  appointed  John 
P.  Dunn  and  Henry  DeF.  Baldwin  Assistants  in  charge  of  the 
Street  Opening  Bureau,  Robert  G.  Monroe  Attorney  for  the 
Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes,  George  W.  Lyon, 
Corporation  Attorney,  and  John  J.  Brady,  now  a  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  Attorney  to  Department  of  Street  Im- 
provements of  the  Twenty-third  and  Twenty-fourth  Wards. 
The  first  Charter  of  the  Greater  New  York  was  drafted  dur- 
ing Mr.  Scott's  term  of  office,  and  he  assisted  in  that  great 
task. 


12 

JOHN  WHALEN,  appointed  January  i,  1898,  to  succeed 
Francis  M.  Scott,  by  Mayor  Van  Wyck.  Mr.  Whalen  was 
the  first  Corporation  Counsel  of  the  Greater  New  York,  and 
as  such  was  required  to  deal  with  all  of  the  exceedingly  diffi- 
cult problems  which  arose  at  that  period.  The  Charter  of 
1897  had  provided  for  a  main  office  in  Manhattan,  branch 
offices  in  Brooklyn  and  other  boroughs,  and  had  continued 
the  bureaus  already  existing.  It  had  also  restored  the  salary 
of  the  Corporation  Counsel  to  $15,000.  Mr.  Whalen  reap- 
pointed John  P.  Dunn  Assistant  in  charge  of  Bureau  of  Street 
Openings;  he  appointed  Adrian  T.  Kiernan  Assistant  in 
charge  of  the  Bureau  of  Penalties  (which  succeeded  the  office 
of  the  Corporation  Attorney),  and  James  C.  Spencer  Assist- 
ant in  charge  of  the  Bureau  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of 
Personal  Taxes.  Almet  F.  Jenks  was  appointed  as  the  As- 
sistant in  charge  of  the  Brooklyn  branch  office,  but  he  was 
elected  to  the  Supreme  Court  bench  in  1900.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  William  J.  Carr,  who  was  also  elected  a  Justice  of 
the  Supreme  Court.  At  the  end  of  Mr.  Whalen's  term  of 
office  he  resumed  private  practice,  and  is  now  a  distinguished 
member  of  our  bar. 

GEORGE  L.  RIVES,  appointed  January  i,  1902,  to  suc- 
ceed John  Whalen  by  Mayor  Low.  Mr,  Rives  was  Assistant 
Secretary  of  State  under  President  Cleveland.  He  was  after- 
wards President  of  the  Commission  which  revised  the  first 
Charter  for  the  Greater  New  York.  He  reorganized  the  de- 
patment  under  the  "Sweep  Bill"  of  1902,  and  instituted  the 
"Tenement  House  Branch  Office"  of  the  department,  to  take 
charge  of  matters  connected  with  the  newly-created  Tene- 
ment House  Department,  appointing  Matthew  C.  Fleming 
Assistant  in  charge  of  that  Bureau,  Arthur  F.  Cosby  as  As- 
sistant in  charge  of  the  Bureau  of  Penalties,  Martin  Saxe 
Assistant  in  charge  of  Bureau  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears 
of  Personal  Taxes,  and  reappointing  John  P.  Dunn  Assistant 
in  charge  of  the  Bureau  of  Street  Openings.    James  McKeen 


*3 

was  appointed  Assistant  in  charge  of  the  Brooklyn  office. 
Mr.  Rives  is  now  counsel  to  the  Board  of  Rapid  Transit  Com- 
missioners of  this  City. 

JOHN  J.  DELANY,  appointed  to  succeed  George  L. 
Rives,  by  Mayor  McClellan,  January  i,  1904.  Reappointed 
January  i,  1906,  by  Mayor  McClellan  for  a  term  of  four 
years ;  resigned  October  7,  1906.  Mr.  Delany  was  greatly  in- 
terested in  the  plans  for  obtaining  a  new  supply  of  water  for 
the  City,  which  were  successfully  urged  by  Mayor  McClel- 
lan. Mr.  Delany  prepared  the  bill  which  became  chapter  724 
of  the  Laws  of  1905,  under  which  the  Board  of  Water  Supply 
was  created.  He  personally  conducted  the  City's  case  be- 
fore the  State  Water  Supply  Commission,  which  approved 
the  City's  plan  of  going  to  the  Catskill  mountains  for  a  new 
supply  of  water.  At  the  end  of  his  terra  of  office  he  resumed 
private  practice,  and  has  been  appointed  one  of  the  Commis- 
sioners in  the  first  proceeding  to  acquire  title  to  property 
needed  for  the  new  water  supply,  which  he  had  done  so  much 
to  render  possible.  Mr.  Delany  reappointed  John  P.  Dunn 
Assistant  in  charge  of  the  Bureau  of  Street  Openings,  and 
appointed  Herman  Stiefel  Assistant  in  charge  of  the  Bureau 
of  Penalties,  Henry  J.  Steinert  Assistant  in  charge  of  the 
Bureau  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes,  and 
John  P.  O'Brien  Assistant  in  charge  of  the  Tenement  House 
branch  office.  Mr.  Steinert  was  appointed  a  City  Magis- 
trate and  was  succeeded  by  James  P.  Keenan.  Mr.  Delany 
appointed  James  D.  Bell  as  Assistant  in  charge  of  the  Brook- 
lyn branch  office. 

WILLIAM  B.  ELLISON  (the  present  incumbent),  ap- 
pointed by  Mayor  McClellan  to  succeed  John  J.  Delany  on 
October  8,  1906.  The  only  change  that  has  been  made  in 
the  heads  of  the  various  bureaus  and  branch  offices  is  the 
assignment  of  George  O'Reilly  as  Assistant  in  charge  of  the 
Bureau  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes. 


14 

List  of  Corporation  Counsels  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn. 
From  Mr.  Richard  B.  Greenwood,  who  has  been  an  Assistantin 
the  Brooklyn  office  for  thirty-two  years,  i  have  obtained  the  fol- 
lowing list  of  the  Corporation  Counsels  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn 
from  the  consolidation  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  the  City  of 
Williamsburg  and  the  Town  of  Bushwick,  in  the  year  1854  to  the 
going  into  effect  of  the  Greater  New  York  Charter : 

NATHANIEL  F.  WARING,  appointed  January  2,  1853 ; 
resigned  August  i,  1856. 

SAMUEL  E.  JOHNSON,  appointed  January  5,  1857. 

ALEXANDER  McCUE,  appointed  May  5,  1859;  reap- 
pointed May  13,  1861. 

JOHN  G.  SCHUMAKER,  appointed  January  5,  1863; 
reappointed  January  9,  1865. 

ALEXANDER  McCUE,  appointed  January  7,  1867. 

WILLIAM  C.  DeWITT,  appointed  January  4,  1869;  re- 
appointed January  4,  1871 ;  reappointed  January  6,  1873;  re- 
appointed January  4,  1875 !  reappointed  January  8,  1877 ;  re- 
appointed January  6,  1879. 

JOHN  A.  TAYLOR,  appointed  January  28,  1882;  reap- 
pointed February  i,  1884. 

ALMET  F.  JENKS,  appointed  January  6,  1886;  reap- 
pointed January  3,  1888;  reappointed  January  15,  1890;  re- 
appointed January  2,  1892. 

ALBERT  G.  McDONALD,  appointed  January  3,  1894. 

JOSEPH  A.  BURR,  appointed  February  i,  1896. 

The  original  charter  of  the  former  City  of  Brooklyn  was 
granted  in  1835.  The  Corporation  Counsels  from  that  date 
down  to  1854  were  as  follows : 

1835  to  1837,  Henry  C.  Murphy. 

1838  to  1839,  Joshua  M.  Van  Cott. 

1840  to  1841,  Wlliam  A.  Greene. 

1842  to  1843,  John  Greenwood. 


15 

1843  to  1846,  Nathaniel  F.  Waring. 

1847  to  1848,  James  Humphreys,  Counsel;  Richard  Ingraham, 
Attorney. 

1849,  William  A.  Greene,  Counsel;  Howard  C.  Cady,  Attorney. 

1850,  Henry  C.  Murphy,  Counsel ;  Henry  Hagner,  Attorney. 
1 85 1  to  1853,  Joshua  M.  Van  Cott,  Attorney  and  Counsel. 

Early  Dutch  Records,  1609  to  1664. 

There  has  been  considerable  controversy  as  to  the  exact  date 
of  the  granting  of  the  original  Charter  to  this  City,  but  the  mat- 
ter is  well  stated  in  a  paper  prepared  by  Hon.  William  C.  De  Witt, 
who  held  the  office  of  Corporation  Counsel  of  Brooklyn  for  six 
successive  terms,  and  we  quote  from  that  paper  as  follows : 

"Henry  Hudson,  in  1609,  commanding  the  Half  Moon, 
"made  the  voyage  of  the  Hudson  from  Manhattan  to  the  site 
"of  Troy.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  point  whether  or 
"not  there  were  earlier  discoveries.  The  maps  of  Verrazano 
"or  the  logs  of  other  navigators,  now  so  interesting  to  the 
"technical  inquiries  of  the  scholars,  were  certainly  unknown  to 
"the  world  at  the  time  of  Hudson's  death.  His  ample  report 
"of  his  voyage  of  the  'River  of  the  Mountains,'  made  upon 
"his  return  to  England  to  the  two  great  commercial  powers  of 
"the  world,  England  and  Holland,  undoubtedly  first  gave  this 
"belt  of  tliE  Western  Continent  to  civilization.  And,  while  the 
"title  of  Holland  was  never  specifically  acknowledged,  she  was 
"permitted  to  assume  dominion. 

"It  is  surprising  to  observe  how  little  in  the  way  of  estab- 
"lishing  civil  institutions  was  done  under  the  dominion  of  Hol- 
"land.  The  original  grant  to  The  New  Netherlatid  Company 
"was  simply  a  grant  of  a  monopoly  of  trade  and  commerce 
"with  the  Indians,  together  with  the  incidental  right  of  gov- 
"ernment  as  exigencies  might  require.  The  grant  which  fol- 
"lowed  to  the  JVest  India  Company  was  in  all  respects  similar. 
"There  was  no  recognition  of  any  right  upon  the  part  of  those 


i6 

"hardy  pioneers,  who  should  settle  in  New  Netherland,  to 
"self-government  or  to  personal  liberty.  They  were  left  to  the 
"mercy  of  the  Director  General  and  a  council  selected  at  Am- 
"sterdam  by  the  IVest  India  Company.  Governor  Peter  Stuy- 
"vesant  having  some  idea  that  the  people  should  in  some  way 
"be  consulted,  gave  orders  for  an  election  of  eighteen  men  by 
"the  people  of  the  territory  that  is  now  somewhat  coincident 
"with  Greater  New  York,  including  Yonkers.  Brooklyn  par- 
"ticipated,  with  Manhattan,  in  this  election.  From  these  eight- 
"een  men,  elected  by  the  people,  Stuyvesant  chose  nine  to  be 
"a  council  to  confer  with  him  whenever  he  saw  fit  and  to  ex- 
"ercise  such  powers  as  he  might  allow.  Stuyvesant  was  merely 
"the  agent  of  the  West  India  Company,  call  him  Director, 
"General,  Governor,  or  what  you  will — a  choleric,  blustering, 
"aggressive,  self-willed  tyrant  was  this  same  Stuyvesant.  He 
"regarded  the  West  India  Company  as  the  fountain  of  all  good 
"and  he  looked  upon  the  people  as  its  vassals.  He  arrested 
"anybody  who  questioned  his  supremacy.  He  seized  ships  in 
"the  harbor  and  confiscated  their  cargoes  with  no  better  claim 
"than  that  they  had  broken  bulk  in  stress  of  weather  before 
"arriving  at  New  Amsterdam.  For  disobedience  of  orders  to 
"appear  before  him  he  confiscated  the  house  and  lot  of  a  citi- 
"zen.  He  persecuted  men  for  their  religious  belief  with 
"shameless  cruelty.  A  Quaker,  ordered  to  operate  a  wheel- 
"barrow,  heavily  ladened,  for  believing  in  the  doctrines  of  his 
"sect,  upon  refusal,  was  lashed  by  a  negro  in  the  public  streets. 
"It  is  not  necessary  to  go  minutely  into  the  outrages  which 
"this  petty  despot  perpetrated  upon  his  subjects.  Enough  has 
"been  said  to  show  what  a  merry  time  the  'Nine  Men'  elected 
"to  confer  with  him  upon  the  public  safety,  as  a  general  coun- 
"cil,  must  have  had  when  in  any  way  inclined  to  run  counter 
"to  his  wishes.  The  slightest  expression  of  discontent  among 
"their  number — he  always  present — excited  his  wrath ;  he 
"pounded  the  floor  with  his  wooden  leg  and  teetotally  damned 
"the   unlucky   malefactor.      If   this    did   not   bring  about   the 


17 

"requisite  obedience,  the  offending  councilman  was  seized  and 
"lodged  in  the  common  jail. 

"These  outrages  at  length  brought  upon  the  stage  the  noble 
'and  patriotic  character  of  Adriaen  Van  Der  Donck.  And  we 
'have,  in  the  petition  for  municipal  independence,  to  the  States 
'General  in  Holland,  a  fine  example  of  his  sterling  qualities. 
'This  petition  presents  in  telling  form  the  claim  of  the  colo- 
'nists  of  municipal  independence.  It  is  dated  July  26,  1649, 
'and  signed  by  the  Council  of  Nine  Men.  Stuyvesant  made 
'haste  to  prevent  and  thwart  it.  Van  der  Donck  was  flung 
'into  jail.  Nevertheless,  this  fine  gentleman  made  his  escape 
'and  proceeded  to  Holland.  Stuyvesant  sent  an  ambassador 
'to  Holland  to  oppose  him,  but  the  personal  conduct  of  this 
'representative  while  there  brought  him  into  irreparable  dis- 
'grace.  Van  der  Donck  soon  awakened  among  the  States 
'General  a  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  colonists  in  New 
'Netherland.  The  States  General  issued  a  provisional  order 
'in  1650  directing  the  West  India  Company  to  give  New  Am- 
'sterdam  a  government  like  that  of  Amsterdam.  History  is 
'replete  with  evidence  that  this  order  was  the  action  of  the 
'government  of  Holland  and  not  of  the  West  India  Company. 

"The  West  India  Company  as  usual  discredited  Van  der 
'Donck  and,  unfriendly  to  the  action  of  the  States  General, 
'neglected  to  put  the  order  into  force  and  sent  tidings  of  it  to 
'Stuyvesant,  secretly  admonishing  him  to  persist  in  his  oppo- 
'sition.  But  Van  der  Donck  remained  at  The  Hague  and, 
'after  two  years  of  agitation,  this  sturdy  reformer  brought 
'the  West  India  Company  to  terms.  The  government  of  Hol- 
'land  had  become  so  persistent  and  determined  in  its  orders 
'that  in  1652  the  West  India  Company  gave  way  and  declared 
'that  New  Amsterdam  should  have  the  right  to  elect  'a  Schout,. 
'  'two  Burgomasters  and  five  Schepens,'  with  all  the  powers 
'of  city  administration  and  government  possessed  by  Amster- 
'dam  itself.    The  order  then  went  forth  from  them  as  well  as 


i8 

"from   the    States   General   that   Stuyvesant   must  confer   the 
"charter, 

"Upon  the  receipt  of  these  commands  Stuyvesant,  having 
"no  other  alternative,  in  pursuance  of  an  old  custom  on  the 
"Feast  of  Candlemas,  1653,  having  summoned  the  people  to- 
"gether,  conferred  upon  them  the  Charter  of  The  City  of 
"New  Amsterdam.  Van  der  Donck  returned  to  take  part 
"in  the  new  administration.  The  city  doubled  its  popula- 
"tion  in  the  nine  years  remaining  before  the  seizure  of  the 
"colony  by  Great  Britain.  Everybody  found  relief  in  this 
"beginning  of  civil  liberty  in  New  Netherland. 

"New  Amsterdam  was  a  city.  It  had  the  public  build- 
"ings  and  the  offices  requisite  to  all  municipal  purposes.  It 
"was  known  as  a  city  to  all  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world. 
"It  was  a  port  of  the  utmost  importance  to  commerce.  It 
"became  a  prize,  long  coveted  and  finally  seized  by  Great 
"Britain.  But  it  cannot  as  a  matter  of  history,  and  it  cannot 
"as  matter  of  law,  be  obliterated  from  the  legal  and  his- 
"torical  annals  of  the  Western  World. 

"Such  was  the  charter  of  1653,  as  bestowed  by  the  States 
"General  on  New  Amsterdam.  It  is  true  that  it  was  resisted 
"for  two  years  by  the  West  India  Company.  It  is  true  that 
"it  was  finally  bestowed  by  that  choleric  and  blustering  ty- 
"rant.  Governor  Stuyvesant,  in  a  speech  which  threatened  its 
"limited  operation.  It  is  true  that  he  did  personally  and  of- 
"ficially  obstruct,  hinder  and  oppose  it  in  many  ways,  but  it 
"was,  none  the  less,  the  Charter  of  New  Amsterdam,  and  it 
"was  not  obtained  without  much  patriotic  and  heroic  effort 
"on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  popular  government.  It  stands 
"to-day  as  the  one  single  instrument  of  respectable  civil  gov- 
"ernment  which  marked  the  dominion  of  the  Dutch  over 
"New  Netherland." 
There  is  now  ample  authority  for  the  following  interesting 
and  picturesque  account  of  the  birth  of  New  York  contained  in 


19 

the  "Histor>'  of  The  City  of  New  York"  by  Mrs.   Martha  J. 
Lamb: 

"While  these  voyages  were  occupying  the  attention  of  the 
"enterprising  merchants  of  Manhattan,  an  interesting  mo- 
"ment  arrived.  A  new  city  appeared  in  the  annals  of  the 
"world.  Its  birth  was  announced  on  the  evening  of  Febru- 
"ary  2,  1653,  at  the  feast  of  Candlemas.  A  proclamation  of 
"the  governor  defined  its  exceedingly  limited  powers  and 
"named  its  first  officers.  It  was  called  New  Amsterdam. 
"There  was  nothing  in  the  significant  scene  which  inspired 
"enthusiasm.  It  came  like  a  favor  grudgingly  granted.  Its 
"privileges  were  few,  and  even  those  were  subsequently 
"hampered  by  the  most  illiberal  interpretations  which  could 
"be  devised.  Stuyvesant  made  a  speech  on  the  occasion,  in 
"which  he  took  care  to  reveal  his  intention  of  making  all  fu- 
"ture  municipal  appointments,  instead  of  submitting  the 
"matter  to  the  votes  of  the  citizens,  as  was  the  custom  in  the 
"Fatherland ;  and  he  gave  the  officers  distinctly  to  under- 
"stand  from  the  first,  that  their  existence  did  not  in  any  way 
"diminish  his  authority,  but  that  he  should  often  preside  at 
"their  meetings,  and  at  all  times  counsel  them  in  matters  of 
"importance.  They  were  not  to  have  a  sheriflf  of  their  own, 
"but  Van  Tienhoven,  the  provincial  sheriflF,  might  officiate 
"for  the  corporation.  Neither  was  it  deemed  requisite  that 
"they  should  have  a  scribe ;  but  Jacob  Kip,  the  newly  ap- 
"pointed  secretar}^  of  the  province,  was  notified  to  attend 
"their  meetings  and  do  such  writing  as  seemed  necessary. 

"There  were  two  burgomasters,  Arent  Van  Hattam  and 
"Martin  Cregier. 

"There  were  five  schepens,  Paulus  Van  der  Grist,  Maxi- 
"milian  Van  Gheel,  Allard  Anthony,  Peter  Van  Couwen- 
"hoven  and  William  Beekman. 

"The  bell-ringer  was  a  notable  and  useful  individual.  He 
"was  the  court  messenger,  the  grave-digger,  the  chorister, 
"the  reader,  and  sometimes  the  school-master.     He  seems 


20 

"also  to  have  been  a  general  waiter  upon  the  city  magis- 
"trates.  He  kept  the  great  room  in  which  they  assembled  in 
"order,  placed  the  chairs  in  thei^  proper  and  precise  posi- 
"tions  and  rang  the  bell  at  the  hour  for  coming  together.  It 
"was  the  business  of  the  sheriff  to  convoke  and  preside  over 
"this  board,  to  prosecute  offenders  and  to  execute  judgments, 
"City  officials  in  the  Fatherland  were  invested  with  judicial 
"and  municipal  powers ;  but,  as  no  specific  charter  had  been 
"granted  to  our  City  Fathers,  their  authority  was  not  well 
"defined.  They  heard  and  settled  disputes  between  parties; 
"tried  cases  for  the  recovery  of  debt,  for  defamation  of 
"character,  for  breaches  of  marriage  promise,  for  assault  and 
"theft,  and  even  summoned  parents  and  guardians  into  their 
"presence  for  withholding  their  consent  to  the  marriage  of 
"their  children  or  wards  without  sufficient  cause.  They  sen- 
"tenced  and  committed  to  prison,  like  any  other  court  of  ses- 
"sion." 

Other  writers  have  given  us  additional  information  in  relation 
to  the  first  struggle  of  the  people  of  New  Amsterdam  for  munici- 
pal government.  In  a  work  entitled  "Civil  List  and  Constitu- 
tional History  of  the  Colony  and  State  of  New  York,"  by  Edgar 
A.  Werner,  we  have  the  following  statement : 

"The  Nine  Men  now  prepared  new  charges  against  Stuy- 
"vesant.  The  Vice-Director  and  Schout-fiscal,  on  the  28th 
"of  February,  165 1,  drew  up  a  long  protest  against  the  Di- 
"rector,  who  thereupon  issued  a  peremptory  order  expelling 
"the  former  from  the  Council,  which  he  refused  to  recognize, 
"whereupon  he  was  arrested  by  soldiers  and  lodged  in  a 
"guard-house.  The  conflict  with  the  Patroon  continued  and 
"the  Director  asserted  his  sovereignty  by  establishing  a  sep- 
"arate  village  government  for  Beaverwyck  on  the  loth  of 
"April,  1652.  Meantime  the  States  General  revived  the 
"Provisional  Order,  the  enforcement  of  which  was  favored 
"by  all  the  Chambers,  except  Amsterdam.  The  Amster- 
"dam    Directors   were    therefore    compelled    to   yield    in    a 


21 


"measure  to  the  popular  demand ;  and  on  the  4th  of  April,  on 
"the  application  of  Van  Der  Donck,  they  granted  an  order 
"directing  the  establishment  of  a  burgher  government  in 
"New  Amsterdam,  alid  making  other  concessions.  In  De- 
"cember  the  Amsterdam  Chamber  censured  the  Patroon  for 
"endeavoring  to  maintain  his  manor  as  a  principality  inde- 
"pendent  of  the  Director.  Burgher  government  was  insti- 
"tuted  in  New  Amsterdam  February  2,  1653.  The  burgo- 
"masters  and  schepens  constituted  a  Court  of  Sessions  and  a 
"Common  Council.  Among  their  first  acts  in  the  latter  capa- 
"city  was  the  taking  of  measures  for  the  defense  of  the  city 
"and  the  raising  of  money  therefor. 

"In  the  beginning  of  the  "year  1657  an  attempt  was  made 
"to  introduce  one  of  those  caste  distinctions  of  the  Nether- 
"lands,  which  gave  to  the  Dutch  Republic  marked  peculiari- 
"ties  as  contrasted  with  the  English  commonwealth.     The 
"  'burgher  right'  was  then  tendered  to  New  Amsterdam.  This 
"right  conferred  important  legal,  commercial  and  political 
"privileges.       Distinctions     were     introduced     among    the 
"burghers  of  Amsterdam,  in  1652,  by  dividing  them  into  two 
"classes,  the  Great  and  Small.     The  lesser  citizenship  only 
"conveyed  freedom  of  trade,  and  the  privilege  of  being  re- 
"ceived  into  the  respective  guilds.    The  great  burghers,  who 
"only  could  hold  office,  became  such  by  official  distinction, 
"inheritance  and  purchase.    This  odious  legalized  system  of 
"an  aristocratic  official  caste  was  formally  introduced  into 
"New  Amsterdam,  February  i,  1657.     To  the  honor  of  the 
"Dutch  founders  of  this  imperial  commonwealth  be  it  said 
"the  attempt  to  sell  the  great  burgher  right  failed.    One  year 
"later  (ist  February,  1658),  when  the  burghers  were  first 
'permitted   to  make   double   nominations   for  magistrates, 
"Stuyvesant  was   compelled   to   invest   some   of   the   more 
"prominent  citizens  with  the  right  in  order  to  fill  the  offices. 
"He,  however,  obtained  thereby  the  power  to  exclude  from 
"the  privilege  of  holding  office  whoever  he  saw  fit,  unless 


22 

"they  paid  for  it.  It  was  not  until  August  5,  1660,  that  a 
"separate  Schout  was  obtained.  Thus  was  finally  secured 
"to  New  Amsterdam,  a  large  portion  of  the  municipal  rights 
"intended  to  be  conferred  years  before." 

It  seems  to  be  quite  well  established  from  the  facts  given 
somewhat  at  length  that  the  first  charter  of  New  York  was 
granted  by  legislative  authority  in  1652  and  conferred  upon  the 
people  of  New  Amsterdam  by  Governor  Stuyvesant  on  the  sec- 
ond day  of  February,  1653. 

The  First  Lawyer  in  New  York  City. 
In  "The  American  Metropolis,"  by  Mr.  Frank  Moss,  the 
author  tells  us  that  in  1653,  the  year  in  which  the  City  obtained 
its  original  Charter,  the  first  lawyer  appeared  in  New  Amster- 
dam. "His  name  was  Dirck  Van  Schelluyne.  He  got  a  license 
in  Holland  to  practice  in  New  York.  There  was  no  other  lawyer 
for  him  to  fight,  and  consequently  there  were  no  suits.  He 
should  have  brought  another  lawyer  with  him.  He  performed 
the  functions  of  a  notary  public  in  a  store,  selling  groceries  for 
his  rent,  and  finally,  he  lost  heart  and  migrated  up  the  State." 

Eiarly  Colonial  Records,  1664  to  1686. 
On  August  27,  1664,  the  City  was  captured  by  the  British,  and 
Nicoll,  the  first  Governor  of  that  nationality  gave  to  the  colony 
its  first  English  charter.  In  1665  the  name  of  "Mayor,  Alder- 
men and  Sheriff  of  New  York"  was  given  to  the  corporation,  and 
the  town  was  thereafter  known  as  The  City  of  New  York. 

The  form  of  municipal  government  established  by  the  Dutch 
was  changed  somewhat  by  the  British.  Instead  of  two  Burgo- 
masters and  a  Schout,  the  Governor  of  the  colony  appointed  a 
Mayor  and  Sheriff,  and  instead  of  five  Schepens,  the  people 
elected  a  Board  of  Aldermen. 

Evidently  attorneys  were  not  held  in  high  esteem  at  that 
period,  and  the  necessity  for  a  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  does 
not  seem  to  have   impressed   the   City  authorities,  for  in   the 


23 

minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  year  1677,  held  at  the 
Stadt  Huys  (or  State  House),  the  following  entry  appears: 

''Query.  Whether  attorneys  are  thought  to  be  useful  to 
plead  in  courts  or  not.  Answer.  It  is  thought  not.  IV hereupon 
resolved  and  ordered,  that  pleading  attorneys  be  no  longer 
allowed  to  practiqe  in  the  government  except  in  the  pending 
cases." 

On  April  22,  1686,  the  famous  "Dongan  Charter"  was  given 
to  The  City  of  New  York  by  Governor  Dongan  and  the  name  of 
the  Corporation  was  changed  to  "The  Mayor,  Aldermen  and 
Commonalty  of  The  City  of  New  York" ;  another  charter,  rati- 
fying the  former  ones,  was  granted  by  Governor  Montgomerie 
on  January  15,  1730.  The  charter  rights  of  The  City  of  Ncav 
York  were  confirmed  by  a  law  of  the  colony  on  October  14,  1732. 

The  Recorder  as  Chief  Counsel  for  the  City,  1686  to  1800. 

It  appears  that  the  Recorder  originally  acted  as  counsel  and 
attorney  for  the  City,  in  addition  to  the  performance  of  his  other 
duties. 

The  office  of  Recorder  of  The  City  of  New  York  was  created 
by  Governor  Dongan,  on  January  15,  1683,  three  years  before  the 
granting  of  the  "Dongan  Charter."  A  petition  had  been  presented 
by  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  the  City  asking  that  a  Recorder 
be  appointed  "to  be  assistant  to  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen  in  the 
Government  of  this  City  and  to  aid  in  the  administration  of 
justice  in  the  courts." 

James  Graham,  a  Scotchman,  was  appointed  by  royal  patent 
as  the  first  Recorder,  and  he  held  the  office,  with  the  exception  of 
an  interval  of  about  two  years,  from  1683  to  1701.  That  he  was 
held  in  high  public  esteem  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  for  many 
years  he  held  not  only  the  important  office  of  Recorder,  but  also 
the  office  of  Attorney-General  of  the  Province,  acted  as  Counsel 
for  the  City,  and  was  the  City's  sole  representative  in  the  Provin- 
cial Assembly. 


24 

Until  the  year  183 1  both  the  Mayor  and  the  Recorder  were 
members  of  the  Common  Council.  The  Recorder  was  also  judge 
of  the  Mayor's  Court.  For  over  one  hundred  years  the  Recorder 
was  the  chief  legal  officer  of  the  City. 

From  the  time  of  the  granting  of  the  Dongan  Charter  in  1686 
down  to  about  the  close  of  the  year  1800  the  minutes  of  the  Com- 
mon Council  contain  numerous  entries  as  to  matters  that  were 
referred  to  the  Recorder  for  action  or  advice.  He  was  directed 
to  institute  proceedings  on  behalf  of  the  corporation  and  to  de- 
fend actions  brought  against  the  corporation,  and  was  frequently 
asked  to  prepare  leases,  ordinances  and  memorials  or  petitions 
to  the  Governor  or  the  King.  The  following  entry  in  the  minutes 
of  the  Common  Council  of  December  8,  1691,  shows  the  manner 
in  which  the  Recorder  was  paid  for  his  services  as  counsel : 

"Ordered  that  the  Recorder  have  Twelve  shillings  for 
each  Patent  of  the  Severall  Lotts  granted  by  the  Citty,  one 
halfe  to  be  paid  by  the  Citty,  the  other  halfe  by  the  Buyer." 

The  names  of  the  Recorders  of  The  City  of  New  York  from 
the  creation  of  the  office  in  1683  to  the  time  when  the  Recorder 
apparently  ceased  to  act  as  Counsel  for  the  City  are  as  follows: 

James  Graham,  from  1683  to  1688. 

(Vacant  in  1689  to  1690.) 

William  Pinhorne,  from  1691  to  1693. 

James  Graham,  from  1693  to  170T. 

Abraham  Gouverneur,  from  1701  to  1703. 

Sampson  Shelton  Broughton,  from  1703  to  1705. 

John  Tudor,  from  1705  to  1709. 

May  Bickley,  from  1709  to  17 12. 

David  Jamison,  from  1712  to  1725. 

Francis  Harrison,  from  1725  to  1735. 

Daniel  Horsmanden,  from  1735  to  1747. 

Simeon  Johnson,  from  1737  to  1769. 

Thomas  Jones,  from  1769  to  1773. 

Robert  R.  Livingston,  from  1773  to  1774. 


25 

John  Watts,  Jr.,  1774  to  1776. 

(No  records  during  the  Revolutionary  War.) 

Richard  Varick,  from  1783  to  1789. 

Samuel  Jones,  from  1780  to  1796. 

James  Keat,  from  1796  to  1798. 

Richard  Harrison,  from  1798  to  1800. 

About  the  year  1691,  entries  begin  to  appear  in  the  minutes 
of  the  Common  Council  showing  the  employment  of  other  counsel 
either  to  assist  the  Recorder  or  to  render  specified  legal  services 
to  the  Council.  This  custom  of  retaining  special  counsel  lasted 
down  to  the  time  of  the  Revolution  in  1776. 

Earliest  Records  of  the  Retainer  of  Other  Counsel,  1691  to  1776 

The  first  record  of  the  employment  of  Counsel  on  behalf  of 
the  City  appears  in  the  minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  July 
7,  1691.    The  Council  had  adopted  a  resolution  as  follows: 

"Ordered,  that  the  Sheriffe  Seize  all  Flower  or  bread  that 
Shall  come  to  this  Citty  which  haue  been  boalted  or  bakt 
without  the  Libertyes  of  the  Same." 

In  order  that  this  resolution  might  be  carried  into  effect  the 
Council  made  the  following  order : 

"Ordered,  that  Capt.  Skuyler  &  Capt.  Willson  [Aldermen 
Brandt  Schuyler  and  Ebenezer  Willson]  reteine  three 
Lawyers  on  behalfe  of  the  Citty." 

The  earliest  mention  of  any  name  other  than  that  of  the  Re- 
corder in  connection  with  a  retainer  as  Counsel  for  the  City  is 
contained  in  the  following  resolution,  which  appears  in  the 
minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  September  29,  1691 : 

"Att  a  Meeting  att  the  Citty  hall  of  Said  City  on  Tuesday 
the  29th  Septemb  A°  1691. 
Present — John  Lawrence,  ESqr  Mayor,  etc. 

Ordered  that  a  new  Address  be  drawne  up  by  Mr.  Emett 
to  the  Gouernor  and  Councill  Relaeting  to  a  bill  passed  the 
house  of  Representatiues  concerning  the  Priuiledges  of  the 
Citty  *  *  *. 


20 

Ordered  that  the  former  Attorneys  appointed  by  the  Com- 
on  Council  for  the  Accon  of  the  fflower  be  Imployed  and 
payd  their  ffees  by  the  Treasurer  in  an  accon  Comenced  by 
the  Widdow  Banker  against  Thomas  Clarke," 

A  sequel  to  the  foregoing  is  found  in  the  minutes  of  October 
7,  1691,  in  which  it  was 

"ORDERED  that  the  Treasurer  pay  unto  Attorneys 
Thirty  Shillings  a  ps.  that  are  reteined  about  the  fflower  and 
unto  the  Attor  Generall  Three  pounds." 

It  was  at  the  same  meeting  also  directed  that  six  pounds  be 
paid  unto  "Mr.  Greyham"  [probably  James  Graham,  the  first  Re- 
corder]  for  drawing  up  the  act  for  the  privilege  of  the  City. 

At  a  meeting  on  Oclober  15,  1691,  it  was 

"Ordered,  that  if  any  matter  or  Suit  att  Law  relating  to 
this  Citty  be  commenced  att  the  next  Supreatn  Court  of 
Judicatur  that  the  Lawyers  formerly  Retain'd  by  the  City  be 
feed  as  formerly  to  Defend  the  Same." 

The  Council  minutes  of  October  5,  1692,  show  who  the  "three 
attorneys"  were,  who  are  mentioned  as  having  been  retained  dur- 
ing the  preceding  year  in  the  "Flour  Case."  At  that  meeting 
it  was 

"Ordered,  that  the  Treasurer  pay  to  the  Attorney  Generall 
three  pounds  and  to  the  other  attorneys,  Mr.  Emett  and 
Tuder,  each  one  Pound  Tenn  Shillings  for  their  ffees  on  acctt 
of  the  fflower  to  appear  at  the  Supreame  Court  on  behalfe  of 
the  Citty." 

The  Attorney-General  referred  to  was  Mr.  James  Graham,  the 
first  Recorder  of  the  City.  During  that  period  he  held  the  two 
offices  of  Attorney-General  of  the  Province  of  New  York  and 
Recorder  of  the  City  of  New  York.  The  minutes  of  the  Council 
contain  many  references  to  the  allowance  of  his  bills  for  services 
rendered  as  counsel  for  the  City,  but  this  remarkable  entry  ap- 
pears in  the  minutes  of  October  13,  1694: 


27 

■'RESOLVED  that  in  Consideration  of  ye  Many  Services 
done  for  this  Citty  by  James  Graham  ESqr  Recorder  of  the 
Same  a  Certaine  Lott  of  Ground  lying  in  the  Queen  Street 
[now  Pearl  street]  in  the  Said  Citty  being  thirty  foot  in 
breadth  fronting  to  the  Said  Street,  &  fourty  foot  in  the 
Rear  be  Granted  unto  him  as  an  Acknowledgment  thereof  & 
ORDER'D  that  the  Mayor  Execute  A  Deed  Accordingly  for 
the  Same." 

Mr.  Graham,  in  addition  to  his  other,  offices,  was  also  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Assembly  at  this  same  period.  We  find  the  following 
record  in  the  minutes  of  June  ii,  1697: 

"ORDERED  that  ye  Mayor  Direct  A  Warrant  to  the 
Treasurer  to  pay  to  James  Graham  ESqr  the  Sum  of  fourteen 
pounds  ten  Shilings  Currt  Money  of  New  Yorke,  itt  being 
for  twenty  Nine  days  Service  as  A  Representative  of  this 
Citty  in  the  last  Sessions  of  Assembly." 

Mr.  James  Emott  is  the  first  counsel  for  the  City  other  than 
the  Recorder  whose  name  is  given  in  the  Council  minutes.  He 
seems  to  have  had  numerous  retainers  from  time  to  time  in 
various  actions  pending,  particularly  in  relation  to  the  ferries  and 
in  relation  to  lands  under  water.  The  first  reference  to  Mr. 
Emott  in  the  minutes  is  given  above  as  one  of  the  three  attorneys 
in  the  ''Flour  Case."  The  last  time  his  name  is  mentioned  is  in 
a  statement  submitted  at  the  meeting  of  the  15th  of  November, 
I709,  from  which  it  appears  that  he  had  been  paid  on  account  of 
the  judgment  in  "the  old  Ferry  House  matter"  thirty-five  pounds. 
He  afterwards  retired  to  New  Jersey,  as  appears  from  references 
in  the  Colonial  Records,  and  died  at  his  country  estate  there. 

The  "Mr.  Tuder"  referred  to  as  the  third  attorney  in  the 
"Flour  Case, '  was  John  Tudor,  who  subsequently  was  appointed 
Recorder  and  held  that  office  from  1705  to  1709. 

A  minute  taken  from  the  meeting  of  November  2,  1700,  mdi- 
cates  the  course  of  the  City's  law  business  at  the  time : 

"ORDERED  that  the  Recorder  (Calling  such  to  his  As- 
sistance as  he  shall  think  fitt)  Examine  into  the  Laws,  Or- 


28 

ders  and  Ordinances  of  this  Citty  and  make  reporte  of  such 
of  them  as  will  be  needful  to  be  continued  and  of  such  as 
Ought  to  be  repealed  and  also  to  Report  to  this  Courte  by 
the  first  conveniency  wt  Laws  are  Nessessary  to  be  made 
and  Added  to  the  same  for  the  better  Rule  and  Government 
of  the  Inhabitants  thereof." 

It  was  at  the  same  meeting  directed  that  the  "Mayor  fee 
Council  for  the  Citty  for  the  sueing  att  law  the  said  John  Eu- 
watse,"  the  action  being  in  relation  to  the  ferry.  John  Euwatse 
had  taken  a  lease  of  the  ferry  from  Manhattan  Island  to  Nassau 
[Long]  Island,  and  had  failed  to  pay  the  rent.  A  new  lease  of 
the  ferry  had  been  made  to  Dirck  Benson,  but  Mr.  Benson  re- 
fused to  comply  with  certain  orders  of  the  Council  as  to  the  ferry 
house. 

It  was  at  the  meeting  of  February  15,  1702, 

"ORDERED  that  Mr.  Recorder  and  Mr.  James  Emott  be 
the  Council  of  the  Citty  And  in  the  Name  of  this  Corporation 
Commence  process  Against  the  said  Dirck  Benson.  Accord- 
ing to  such  speedy  Methods  for  the  Recovery  of  the  same  as 
they  Shall  think  fitt  and  that  the  Mayor  Issue  his  Warrt.  to 
the  Treasurer  for  the  payment  of  the  Charge  thereof." 

A  third  lease  of  the  ferry  was  made,  this  time  to  Isaac  D. 
Riemer,  who  was  afterwards  appointed  Mayor  of  the  City. 

At  a  meeting  on  March  9,  1702  (3),  it  was 

"ORDER'D  further  that  the  Council  in  the  Name  of  this 
Corporation  Commence  an  Action  Against  Mr.  Isaac  D. 
Riemer  for  the  Rent  of  the  house  att  the  Ferry  due  to  this 
City.  And  also  that  Mr.  Emott  speak  to  John  Euwoutse  to 
pay  the  Money  he  Owes  this  Corporation  &  that  if  he  Re- 
fuses so  to  doe  that  Mr.  Emott  take  out  Process  Agt.  him." 

The  Recorder  acted  as  counsel  for  the  City  in  numerous  mat- 
tors  without  the  assistance  of  outside  counsel.    This  is  shown  by 


29 

an  entry  in  the  minutes  of  October  ii,  1710,  at  which  meeting  it 

was 

"ORDER'D  that  the  Mayor  Issue  his  Warrant  to  the 
1'reasurer  to  pay  to  May  Bickley  Esqr.  or  Order  the  sum  of 
■  Eleaven  pounds  ten  shillings  Currt.  Money  of  New  York  it 
being  for  fees  in  the  Action  of  sickles  ads.  Turneur  in  1768, 
tees  for  Attending  the  Council  for  Opposing  the  passing  the 
Bills  about  the  Repair  of  the  highways  and  for  Attending 
the  Assembly  several  times  to  Oppose  the  passing  of  the 
Bill  for  Enforcing  the  Covenants  of  the  Lease  of  the  ferry 
which  is  Allowed." 

May  Bickley  was  at  this  time  Recorder  of  the  City  and  the 
entry  indicates  that  the  City  even  at  that  early  date  was  repre- 
sented by  counsel  before  the  Legislature. 

That  the  Recorder  received  fees  for  his  services  as  counsel  in 
addition  to  the  salary  of  his  office  also  appears  from  the  follow- 
ing entries: 

At  the  meeting  of  August  26,  1713,  it  was  ordered  that 

"David  Jamison,  Esq.,  Recorder  of  this  City,  do  file  A 
Declaration  in  Ejectment  agt.  some  Casual  Ejector  and  do 
what  Else  may  be  Proper  in  the  Law  to  Assert  the  Right  of 
this  Corporation  to  the  Lands  and  Commons  of  this  City  on 
this  island  Manhattans  to  Low  water  Marke." 

At  the  meeting  of  June  7,  1726,  it  was 

"Order'd  the  Mayor  Issue  his  Warrant  to  the  Treasurer 
to  pay  to  Francis  Harison,  ESqr.,  Recorder  of  this  City  or 
Order  the  sum  of  Nine  pounds  Currt.  Money  of  New  York 
for  Sundry  services  done  for  this  Corporation  Mentioned  in 
his  Memorial  Exhibited  to  this  Court  on  the  i8th  day  of 
April  last  past  which  was  Considered  Audited  and  Allowed." 

At  the  meeting  of  March  24,  1726,  it  was 

"Order'd  that  in  Case  any  prosecution  be  Commenced  agt. 
this  Corporation  or  the  Justices  of  this  City  and  County  who 


30 

are  the  Mayor,  Recorder  and  Aldermen  of  this  Corporation 
for  the  Incommodiousness  and  Insufficiency  of  the  Gaols ;  that 
Mr.  Recorder  and  Mr.  Joseph  Murray  and  Mr.  John  Cham- 
bers, Attorneys-at-Law  be  Retained  as  Council  for  this  Cor- 
poration to  defend  the  same,  And  that  Mr.  Mayor  Issue  War- 
rants to  the  Treasurer  to  pay  to  each  of  them  five  pounds  as 
a  Retaining  fee." 

Mr.  John  Chambers  was  a  native  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
who,  during  this  period,  seems  to  have  filled  numerous  offices  in 
connection  with  the  City  Government.  He  was  an  Assistant  Alder- 
man from  1729  to  1733.  He  was  retained  on  several  occasions  as 
counsel  apparently  at  times  when  he  was  not  otherwise  connected 
with  the  Corporation,  and  he  subsequently  (as  appears  from  the 
meeting  of  the  Common  Council  of  July  30,  1728)  returned  the 
retaining  fee  which  he  and  Mr.  Murray  received,  "expressing  their 
zeal  and  Affection  for  the  good  and  Welfare  of  this  Corporation, 
and  that  they  shall  always  to  the  utmost  of  their  power  defend  this 
Corporation  against  any  Attempts  to  disturb  or  molest  them  in  their 
lawful  rights  and  priviledges."  The  freedom  of  the  City  was  at 
this  meeting  conferred  both  upon  Mr.  Chambers  and  upon  his  asso- 
ciate, Joseph  Murray. 

The  William  Smith  retained  with  Mr.  Chambers  was  a  nephew 
of  "Tangier"  Smith  and  "Port  Royal"  Smith.  He  was  an  Alder- 
man from  1702  to  1712.  He  was  first  retained  in  an  action  "in 
ejectment"  wherein  Casper  Kimber,  on  the  demise  of  Cornelius  Cor- 
trecht  and  others,  were  plaintiffs,  and  Thos.  DeKey  defendant;  his 
account  in  the  sum  of  nine  pounds  nine  shillings  3  pence  was  or- 
dered paid  at  a  Common  Council  meeting  of  February  28,  1827. 
He  had  numerous  retainers  from  the  Council. 

A  custom  began  apparently  about  1743  of  engaging  counsel 
upon  general  retainers,  for  at  the  meeting  of  July  30,  1743,  it  was 

"Order'd  the  Mayor  Issue  his  Warrant  to  the  Treasurer 
to  pay  to  Richard  NichoUs,  or  order,  the  sum  of  eight  pounds 
current  money  of  this  Colony,  to  be  by  him  paid  to  James 
Alexander;  Joseph  Murray;  William  Smith  and  John  Cham- 


31 

bers,  Esqrs.  (that  is  to  say,  fforty  shillings  to  each  of  them)  As 
a  General  Retainer  as  Council  for  this  Corporation  in  all 
causes  to  be  bro't  by  or  against  them." 

The  habit  still  continued  of  giving  the  Recorder  general  super- 
vision, however,  as  is  evidenced  by  an  entry  in  the  minutes  of 
February  i,  1745   (6),  as  follows: 

"Mr.  Mayor  produced  to  this  Board  a  Copy  of  a  Petition 
preferred  to  the  Generall  Assembly  by  the  Trustees  of  the 
Township  of  Brookland  [Brooklyn]  which  Copy  was  deliv- 
ered him  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Generall  Assembly. 

Whereupon  this  Board  Ordered  That  the  Mayor  be  De- 
sired to  Give  Daniel  Horsmanden  and  Joseph  Murray,  Esqrs. 
five  pounds,  twelve  shillings  Each  As  a  Retainer  for  this  Cor- 
poration, and  That  he  Desire  them  to  Appear  for  this  Cor- 
poration before  the  Generall  Assembly  As  soon  as  Conveniently 
May  be  and  Oppose  the  Granting  the  Prayer  of  that  Petition 
by  Such  Arguments  as  they  Shall  Think  Most  Proper." 

Daniel  Horsmanden  was  Recorder  of  The  City  of  New  York 
from  1735  to  1747.  He  was  subsequently  a  member  of  the  Gov- 
ernor's Council  and  later  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Judicature.  The  last  reference  to  his  services  in  the  city  records 
is  at  the  meeting  of  October  2,  1747,  at  which  it  was 

"ORDER'D  the  Mayor  to  Issue  his  Warrant  to  the  Treas- 
urer to  pay  to  Daniel  Horsmanden,  Esqr.,  Late  Recorder  of 
this  City,  Or  Order,  the  Sum  of  seventy  pounds  Current 
money  of  this  Colony  in  full  for  Services  by  him  done  for  this 
Corporation  for  Seven  Years  last  past." 

Abraham  Lodge  is  the  next  counsel  of  whom  we  have  any  rec- 
ord. At  a  Common  Council  meeting  held  on  September  12,  1750, 
it  was 

"ORDERD  that  an  action  of  Trespass  and  Ejectment  be 
brought  on  the  Demise  of  this  Corporation  against  John  Van 
Zandt  for  Incroaching  on  and  Enclosing  part  of  the  Common 
Lands  of  this  Corporation,  and  that  Abraham  Lodge  be  At- 


32 

torney  on  Record  in  prosecuting  said  action  and  that  he  Draw 
a  warrant  of  Attorney  for  prosecuting  said  Action,  and  that 
he  affix  the  seal  of  this  Corporation  thereto,  and  that  the  Same 
be  signed  by  the  Mayor." 

Abraham  Lodge  appears  to  have  been  first  connected  with  the 
Q)rporation  in  the  capacity  of  Deputy  Clerk  to  the  Common  Coun- 
cil. He  was  retained  in  several  matters,  particularly  in  the  "Har- 
lem land  dispute,"  and  in  an  action  brought  against  the  Mayor  in 
relation  to  the  market  fees,  and  his  last  official  connection  with  the 
City  as  Counsel  is  disclosed  by  an  entry  in  the  Council  minutes  of 
July  22,  1757,  directing  the  commencement  of  an  action  "to  deter- 
mine whether  the  fees  of  the  stalls  and  standings  of  the  several 
markets  of  this  City  belong  to  the  said  Mayor  as  Clerk  thereof,  or 
to  this  corporation." 

That  there  was  no  exclusive  retainer  in  behalf  of  any  individual 
counsel,  is  shown  by  the  record  of  a  meeting  of  the  Common  Coun- 
cil held  September  6,  1753,  at  which  there  was  retained  Mr.  Joseph 
Murray,  Mr.  William  Smith,  Mr.  Benjamin  Nicoll  and  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Smith,  Jr.,  for  an  opinion 

"wheather  the  Ground  and  Soil  from  high  to  Low  Water  Mark 
at  Brookland  Ferry  be  in  this  Corporation  or  not  and  if  they 
Should  be  of  Opinion  that  the  said  Ground  and  Soil  belong  to 
this  Corporation  that  an  Action  of  Trespass  and  Ejectment  be 
forthwith  Commenced  in  the  name  of  this  Corporation  against 
Jacob  Remsen  for  an  Encroachment  By  him  made  on  the 
part  of  the  said  Ground  and  Soil  at  the  said  Brookland  Ferry." 

Benjamin  Nicoll  appears  first  in  the  City  records  as  having  been 
engaged  chiefly  in  matters  adverse  to  the  City.  He  seems  to  have 
had  only  one  other  retainer  in  addition  to  the  matter  in  relation  to 
the  ferry,  and  this  was  when,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Common  Council, 
held  March  26,  1759,  it  was 

"ORDER'D  that  the  Clerk  of  this  Board  prepare  a  warrant 
of  attorney  To  alderman  Scott  to  Enable  him  to  Bring  an  Ac- 
tion of  Trespass  and  Ejectments  in  the  Name  of  the  Mayor 


33 

aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York  against 
the  Executors  or  Devisees  of  David  Jonathan  Provoost  De- 
ceased and  that  the  Said  Clerk  Affix  the  Seal  of  this  Cor- 
poration thereto  to  be  Signed  by  Mr.  Mayor  and  further  OR- 
DER'D  that  Mr.  Nicoll  be  appointed  to  assist  Mr.  Scott  in 
the  Carrying  on  and  Prosecuting  of  the  Said  Action  to 
Effect." 

The  following  minute  is  from  the  records  of  the  Common 
Council  of  July  30,  1765 : 

"Alderman  Hicks,  who  was  Authorized  By  two  Certain 
Orders  of  this  Board,  the  one  made  and  entered  on  the  19th 
of  February  Last  and  the  other  on  the  22d  of  April,  follow- 
ing to  take  the  Opinions  of  William  Smith,  Junr,  John  Mo- 
rine  Scott  and  William  Livingston,  Esqrs.,  whether  the  Re- 
corder when  the  Mayor  calls  a  Common  Council  and  is  pres- 
ent and  it  has  a  Right  to  set  and  Vote  in  Common  Council 
as  a  member  thereof;  reported  to  this  Board  that  he  made  a 
State  of  the  Case,"  etc. 

John  Morin  Scott  appears  to  have  been  first  officially  connect- 
ed with  the  City's  administration  as  an  Alderman  for  "The  Out- 
Ward,"  from  1757  to  1762,  and  served  on  numerous  committees 
of  the  Common  Council.  He  had  several  retainers  in  addition  to 
those  hereinbefore  shown,  the  last  of  these,  being  shown  in  the 
following  minute  of  the  Common  Council  of  October  14,  1772: 

"This  Board  being  in  Doubt,  whether  Benjamin  Blagge, 
Esqr.  Can  Legally  Execute  the  Offices  of  Coroner  and  Jus- 
tice of  the  peace  for  this  City  &  County  together,  and  in 
order  to  remove  said  Doubt,  have  agreed  to  take  the  opinion 
of  the  following  Gentlemen  of  the  Law  (to  wit)  the  Attorney 
General  [John  Tabor  Kempe],  Mr.  William  Smith,  Mr. 
Scott,  Mr.  Duane,  Mr.  S.  Jones,  Mr.  Kissam,  Mr. 
[Peter]  Jay  &  Mr.  Ths.  Smith:  ORDER'D  that  Mr.  Re- 
corder be  desired  to  make  a  Case  for  them  agreeable  to  the 
directions  of  the  Charter." 


34 

/ames  Duane  was  retained  in  the  "Hunter's  Quay  Case,"  in 
which  he  was  assisted  by  William  Smith,  Jr.,  William  Livingston 
and  Benjamin  Kissam,  as  appears  from  the  records  of  the  Com- 
mon Council  of  August  24,  1767.  He  was  also  employed  by  reso- 
lution of  January  24,  1771,  to  defend  an  indictment  brought 
against  the  City  by  the  Grand  Jury  on  that  day,  for  a  nuisance  in 
maintaining  what  was  then  called  the  "Oswego  Market." 

Mr.  Duane  was  afterwards  elected  Mayor  of  the  City  and  held 
that  position  from  1783  to  1788.  He  was  the  first  Mayor  after  the 
evacuation  of  the  City  by  the  British  troops. 

The  retainers  of  Benjamin  Kissam  in  behalf  of  the  City,  seem 
to  have  been  limited  to  the  two  which  we  have  above  noted. 

William  Livingston's  name  first  appears  in  the  minutes  of  the 
Common  Council  of  May  i,  1752,  in  the  following  resolution: 

"ORDERD  that  a  fee  of  Three  Pounds  Be  Given  to  Mr. 
William  Livingston  to  Be  an  Assistant  to  Mr.  Lodge  who 
was  appointed  by  this  Board  on  the  12th  of  September,  1750 
to  Be  Attorney  on  Record  to  Commence  an  Action  of  Tres- 
pass and  Ejectment  on  the  Demise  of  this  Corporation 
against  John  Van  Zandt." 

He  does  not  appear  to  have  been  retained  in  any  matters  other 
than  those  already  mentioned. 

Samuel  Jones,  in  the  revolutionary  period,  was  retained  in  the 
"Oswego  Market  Indictment,"  and  in  the  other  matter  of  the 
double  office  holding  of  Coroner  Blagge  before  mentioned.  In 
the  post-revolutionary  period  his  opinion  seems  to  have  been 
sought  somewhat  freely ;  amongst  other  matters  referred  to  him 
(this  time  in  conjunction  with  Alexander  Hamilton)  being  the 
Van  Zandt-Clarke-Provoost  dispute  respecting  a  water  lot  facing 
on  the  Burling  slip  at  Pearl  street,  the  subject  matter  of  which 
litigation  is  now  involved  in  a  pending  action  open  on  the  books 
of  the  Corporaton  Counsel.  After  the  Revolution  Samuel  Jones 
was  Recorder  of  the  City,  serving  from  1780  to  1795,  inclusive. 


35 

There  may  have  been  other  persons  retained  by  the  Common 
Council,  but  the  names  mentioned  are  the  only  ones  appearing 
in  the  minutes  down  to  the  time  of  the  Revolution  in  1776. 

The  Revolutionary  Period,  1776  to  1783. 

During  the  Revolutionary  period  from  1776  to  1783  the  City 
was  under  military  rule,  with  a  Provost  Marshal  at  the  head  of  the 
government.  The  treaty  of  peace  of  December,  1783,  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  under  which  the  Colonies  sepa- 
rated from  the  mother  country,  did  not  change  the  character  of 
the  City  Government.  The  Governor  of  the  State  and  his  Coun- 
cil appointed  the  Mayor,  Recorder,  SheriflF  and  Coroner,  but  the 
Aldermen  and  other  municipal  officers  were  elected. 

The  Post-Revolutionary  Period,  1783  to  1800. 

From  the  time  of  the  evacuation  of  New  York  by  the  British 
troops  on  November  25,  1783,  down  to  and  including  the  year 
1800,  the  legal  affairs  of  the  City  appear  to  have  been  adminis- 
tered entirely  by  the  Recorders  of  the  City.  Richard  Varick  was 
Recorder  from  1783  to  1789,  Samuel  Jones  from  1780  to  1795, 
James  Keat  from  1796  to  1798  and  Richard  Harrison  from  1798 
to  1800. 

At  the  Charter  election  held  in  November,  1800,  the  Federal- 
ists, who  had  been  in  power  since  the  Revolution,  were  defeated  by 
the  Anti-Federalists,  who  at  that  time  began  to  assume  the  name  of 
Republicans  and  were  called  by  their  opponents  Democrats.  Richard 
Varick  was  then  Mayor  and  John  J.  Prevoost  Recorder ;  the  for- 
mer had  held  the  office  uninterruptedly  since  the  year  1789. 

The  First  "Corporation  Attorneys,"  1801  to  1839. 

The  office  or  oosition  of  "Attorney  of  the  Corporation"  was 
first  created  by  the  Common  Council  in  1801.  On  March  23d  of 
that  year  Anthony  Dey  was  appointed  as  "Attorney  to  this  Cor- 
poration" and  was  directed  to  take  charge  of  all  proceedings  to 
collect  penalties.    His  fees  were  fixed  at  one-half  of  the  amount  of 


3<5 

penalties  recovered.  This  was  the  origin  of  the  office  of  "Corpo- 
ration Attorney"  which  existed  down  to  the  time  of  the  consolida- 
tion of  the  Greater  New  York  on  January  i,  1898,  when  the  name 
of  the  office  was  changed  to  the  "Bureau  of  Penalties." 

In  the  earliest  revisions  of  the  City  ordinances,  the  first  ordinance 
in  each  case  relates  to  "the  due  observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  called 
Sunday."  Before  the  year  1801  the  "High  Constable"  was  charged 
with  the  duty  of  enforcing  this  law.  During  that  year  the  law  was 
amended  and  the  Attorney  for  the  Corporation  was  directed  to  take 
charge  of  all  such  proceedings. 

In  1 801  Edward  Livingston  received  the  appointment  of  Mayor 
of  New  York. 

The  election  of  Aldermen  in  1802,  which  carried  with  it  political 
control  of  the  City,  was  marked  by  extreme  violence.  DeWitt  Clin- 
ton, a  nephew  of  Governor  George  Qinton,  was  the  leader  of  the 
Republicans  and  was  opposed  by  the  family  of  the  Livingstons,  a 
wealthy  and  powerful  combination,  and  a  faction  led  by  Aaron 
Burr.  A  duel  was  fought  between  DeWitt  Clinton  and  Robert 
Swartwout,  a  friend  of  Aaron  Burr,  in  which  Mr,  Swartwout  was 
wounded.     The  Federalists  defeated  the  Republicans. 

On  August  8,  1803,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Common  Council  a  reso- 
lution was  adopted  removing  Anthony  Dey  from  the  position  of 
Attorney  for  the  Corporation  and  appointing  in  his  place  Isaac  A. 
Van  Hook,  with  the  title  of  "Attorney  and  Counsel  of  the  Board." 

During  the  year  1803  Edward  Livingston,  who  had  received  an 
appointment  as  United  States  District  Attorney  for  the  District  of 
New  York,  resigned  the  office  of  Mayor  and  was  succeeded  by 
DeWitt  Qinton,  at  that  time  a  United  States  Senator,  who  had 
resigned  his  position  for  the  Mayoralty. 

On  November  10,  1804,  Maturin  Livingston  was  appointed  Re- 
corder of  New  York.  The  City  Government  up  to  that  time  had 
been  kept  in  the  hands  of  the  Federalists,  but  during  this  year  for 
the  first  time  the  Republicans  obtained  a  majority  in  the  Board. 
At  a  Republican  caucus  in  1804,  at  which  the  Mayor  (DeWitt  Clin- 


37 

ton),   the  Recorder    (Maturin   Livingston)    and   eleven   Aldermen 
were  present,  the  following  action  was  taken : 

"Proceedings  to  be  Confidential." 

"Street  Commissioner  to  be  removed — Unanimous. 

"Comptroller  to  be  removed — Unanimous. 

"Superintendent  of  Alms  House  to  be  removed — Unanimou?. 

"Superintendent  of  Scavengers  to  be  removed — Unanimous. 

"Commissioner  of  Public  Repairs  to  be  removed — Unanimous. 

"Attorney  of  the  Board  to  be  removed — Unanimous. 

"Counsel  of  the  Board  to  be  removed — Unanimous. 

"Etc.,  etc." 

As  a  result  of  this  caucus  Isaac  A.  Van  Hook  was  removed  by 
the  Council  on  December  24,  1804,  and  Samuel  Cowdrey  was  elected 
as  "Attorney  for  the  Corporation."  Mr.  Cowdrey  subsequently 
complained  that  the  fees  of  his  office  were  too  uncertain,  and  a 
resolution  was  adopted  by  the  Council  fixing  the  fees  of  the  At- 
torney at  $2  for  all  proceedings  where  the  penalty  was  under  $25, 
and  $5  for  all  proceedings  where  the  penalty  recovered  amounted 
to  $25  or  over. 

At  the  election  of  1806,  the  Federalists  and  "Lewisites"  combined, 
obtaining  a  majority  over  the  "Clintonians,"  and  the  Mayor,  Re- 
corder and  all  other  municipal  officers,  including  the  Attorney  to 
the  Corporation,  were  removed.  Marinus  Willett  was  appointed 
Mayor  and  Maturin  Livingston,  Recorder.  Samuel  Cowdrey  was 
removed  from  the  position  of  Attorney  and  Isaac  A.  Van  Hook 
wa.s  appointed  Attorney  for  the  second  time. 

In  1807  the  Cliiitonian  Republicans  regained  the  ascendency  in 
the  State  and  DeWitt  Clinton  was  reappointed  Mayor  and  Pierre 
C.  \'an  Wyck,  Recorder. 

On  December  21,  1807,  Mr.  Van  Hook  was  removed  for  the 
second  time  from  the  position  of  Attorney  to  the  Corporation,  and 
Samuel  Cowdrey  was  appointed  for  the  second  time  to  the  posi- 
tion. 


38 

On  December  28,  1807,  an  amended  law  was  passed  by  the 
Common  Council  "for  the  due  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day,  called 
Sunday,"  and  one  of  the  provisions  of  this  law  was  that  the  At- 
torney of  the  Board  should  be  authorized  after  the  recovery  and 
receipt  of  any  penalty  to  pay  over  to  the  person  giving  information 
upon  which  a  conviction  was  obtained,  one-half  of  the  fine  or  pen- 
alty, and  directing  all  Constables  and  Marshals  to  apprehend  all 
offenders  against  the  ordinance  and  to  give  such  information  to  the 
Attorney  for  the  Corporation. 

At  the  election  in  the  fall  of  1808,  the  Republicans  were  again 
successful,  but  in  the  State  election  of  1809  the  Federalists,  for  the 
first  time  since  1799  carried  the  State.  On  December  18,  1809, 
Samuel  Cowdrey  was  removed  for  the  second  time  from  the  posi- 
tion of  Attorney  to  the  Board  and  Isaac  A.  Van  Hook  was  reap- 
pointed for  the  third  time  to  the  position.  The  Council  of  Apiioint- 
ment  at  Albany  at  their  first  meeting,  early  in  the  year  18 10,  re- 
moved Mr.  Clinton  from  the  office  of  Mayor  and  Mr.  Van  Wyck 
from  the  office  of  Recorder,  appointing  in  their  places  Jacob  Rad- 
cliff,  Mayor,  and  Josiah  Ogden  Hoffman,  Recorder. 

At  the  State  election  for  the  year  181 1,  the  Republicans  were 
again  successful,  and  the  consequence  was  the  reappointment  in  the 
spring  of  181 1  of  DeWitt  Clinton  as  Mayor  and  Pierre  C.  Van 
Wyck  as  Recorder.  On  January  20,  181 2,  Mr,  Van  Hook  was  re- 
moved from  the  position  of  Attorney  to  the  Board  for  the  third 
time,  and  David  S.  Jones  was  appointed  "Attorney  and  Counsel  to 
the  Board." 

The  Charter  of  the  City  was  revised  in  1813,  but  it  contained  no 
reference  to  any  department  to  be  known  as  the  "Law  Department" 
or  to  any  officer  to  be  known  as  Attorney  or  Counsel  to  the  Cor- 
poration. 

In  March,  181 5,  DeWitt  Clinton  was  removed  from  the  office  of 
^ayor  and  John  Ferguson  was  appointed  in  his  place;  Mr,  Fer^fu- 
son  resigned  in  the  following  June  and  the  Council  appointed  Jacob 
Radcliff,  Mavor. 


39 

In  the  Charter  election  in  the  spring  of  1816,  the  Republicans  for 
the  first  time  adopted  the  name  of  Democrats.  They  carried  the 
election  and  soon  afterwards  David  S.  Jones,  Attorney  to  the  Cor- 
poration, was  removed  and  Ogden  Edwards  was  appointed  as  "Coun- 
sel to  the  Corporation"  and  Alpheus  Sherman  as  "Attorney  to  the 
Corporation."  This  was  the  first  time  when  the  offices  of  Counsel 
and  Attorney  were  held  by  different  persons.  Mr.  Edwards  held 
office  from  1816  to  1823;  in  1823  he  was  elected  a  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  and  held  that  position  until  1840.  Mr.  Sherman 
was  Attorney  to  the  Corporation  up  to  May  14,  182 1,  when  he  was 
succeeded  by  Michael  Ulshoeffer.  Ogden  Edwards  was  the  first 
Corporation  Counsel  elected  to  the  Bench. 

By  a  law  or  ordinance  of  the  Common  Council  passed  the  5th 
day  of  May,  1817,  it  was  directed  that  all  fines  and  penalties  im- 
posed by  law  should  be  sued  for  and  recovered  in  the  name  of  the 
Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  The  City  of  New  York,  and 
that  one-half  of  the  penalty  recovered  should  be  paid  to  the  person 
giving  the  information  upon  which  conviction  was  obtained,  and 
that  the  Attorney  should  make  a  report  to  the  Comptroller  once 
each  month  of  the  actions  commenced  and  the  moneys  recovered  and 
paid  to  informers.  By  an  ordinance  passed  May  28,  182 1,  the 
salary  of  the  "Counselor  to  the  Board"  was  fixed  at  $400. 

The  Republicans  were  defeated  at  the  election  in  1823  by  the 
"People's  Party"  and  William  Paulding  was  appointed  Mayor. 

In  October,  1823,  Michael  Ulshoeffer  was  appointed  "Attorney 
and  Counselor,"  and  held  those  two  offices  until  1829.  Mr,  Ul- 
shoeffer was  elected  a  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  in  the 
year   1834  and  held  that  office  until   1850. 

In  the  year  1829  after  the  election  contest  between  the  friends 
of  Jackson  and  Adams,  which  resulted  in  favor  of  the  Jackson 
ticket,  Walter  Bowne  was  appointed  Mayor.  The  Common  Council 
in  that  year  appointed  Robert  Emmett  as  "Counsel  to  the  Corpora- 
tion," and  he  held  the  position  for  the  following  eight  years.  Mr. 
Emmett  was  elected  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  1852,  and 
served  until  1855. 


40 

On  April  7,  1830,  the  Legislature  revised  the  Charter  of  The 
City  of  New  York,  providing  for  separate  meetings  of  the  two 
Boards  composing  the  Common  Council,  and  leaving  out  the  Mayor 
and  Recorder  as  members  of  the  Council,  but  giving  to  the  Mayor 
the  power  of  approving  or  disapproving  the  acts  of  the  Common 
Council. 

In  section  21  of  the  act  referred  to  the  right  to  create  executive 
departments  was  given  in  the  following  terms : 

"The  executive  business  of  the  corporation  of  New  York 
shall  hereafter  be  performed  by  distinct  departments,  which  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  common  council  to  organize  and  ap- 
point for  that  purpose." 

The  Common  Council  soon  afterward  did  create  a  number  of 
municipal  departments,  but  the  Law  Department  was  not  one  of 
them. 

At  the  election  in  the  spring  of  1837,  Aaron  Clark,  IVhig,  de- 
feated John  J.  Morgan,  Democrat,  and  Mr.  Emmett  was  removed 
from  the  position  of  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  and  George  F. 
Tallman  was  appointed  in  his  place.  Mr.  Tallman  held  oflFice  from 
1837  to  1839. 

From  1839  to  1849 — The  Office  of  "Counsel  to  the  Corporation" 

Created. 

On  May  14,  1839,  the  positions  of  "Counsel  to  the  Corpora- 
tion" and  "Attorney  to  the  Corporation"  were  made  permanent  city 
offices  by  the  following  ordinance  or  law  of  the  Common  Council, 
which  was  adopted  under  the  authority  conferred  by  the  Charter 
Revision  of  1830: 

"The  Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  The  City  of  New 
York,  in  Common  Council  convened,  do  ordain  as  follows : 

"Section  i.  A  suitable  person  of  the  degree  of  counsellor 
at  law  in  the  Supreme  Court  shall  be  appointed  as  Counsel  to 
the  Corporation;  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  advise  the  two  boards 
and  their  committees  and  officers  on  such  legal  questions  as 


41 

mav  from  time  to  time  arise  in  relation  to  the  business  of  the 
corporation,  and  to  perform  all  such  other  services  in  the  line 
of  his  professsion  connected  with  the  business  of  the  corpora- 
tion as  are  not  comprised  in  the  duties  of  the  Attorney. 

"Sec.  2.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Counsel,  at  the  expira- 
*  tion  of  every  three  months,  to  make  a  written  report  to  the 
Comptroller  of  the  items  of  fees  and  moneys  received  by  him 
and  due  to  him  for  services  performed  in  matters  not  relating 
to  or  connected  with  the  business  which  he  is  authorized  to 
transact  as  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  and  if  it  shall  appear 
at  the  end  of  each  year  that  he  shall  not  have  received  the 
gross  sum  of  $4,000  he  shall  be  entitled  to  receive  from  the 
Corporation  payment  of  the  customary  costs  and  fees  for  such 
services  as  he  may  have  been  required  to  render  to  an  amount 
not  exceeding  such  deficiency,  but  if  the  sum  received  by  and 
due  to  him  from  persons  other  than  the  Corporation  shall  ex- 
ceed the  sum  of  $4,000  he  shall  not  be  entitled  to  receive  from 
the  Corporation  payment  for  any  services  rendered  by  him  for 
them,  and  shall  be  considered  as  fully  remunerated  by  the 
emoluments  derived  from  services  rendered  to  others. 

"Sec.  3.  All  ordinances  and  resolutions  inconsistent  are 
hereby  repealed." 

The  same  ordinance  continued  the  office  of  "Attorney  to  the 
Corporation"  in  the  following  terms: 

"Section  i.  A  suitable  person  of  the  degree  of  attorney  at 
law  in  the  Supreme  Court  shall  be  appointed  as  Attorney  to 
the  Corporation.  It  shall  be  his  duty  to  commence  and  prose- 
cute all  suits  for  breaches  of  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  the 
Corporation ;  all  suits  arising  under  the  charter  of  this  City, 
and  all  actions  upon  the  laws  of  this  State,  in  cases  where  the 
penalty  is  given  to  this  Corporation  or  to  the  Overseers  of  the 
Poor  of  this  City. 

"Sec.  2.  The  Attorney  of  the  Corporation  shall  hereafter 
receive  a  salary  of  two  thousand  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars 
per  annum,  payable  quarterly,  and  the  further  sum,  in  lieu  of 


42 

Clerk  hire,  of  seven  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per  annum,  pay- 
able quarterly,  in  lieu  of  all  fees  or  other  charges  against  the 
Corporation,  or  against  any  other  person  or  persons,  on  any 
complaint  for  a  violation  of  any  ordinance  of  the  Common 
Council,  but  this  provision  shall  not  be  construed  to  prevent  him 
from  collecting  or  receiving  from  any  person,  other  than  the 
Corporation,  his  taxable  costs  in  any  suit  in  any  court  of  rec- 
ord, and  in  case  he  shall  not  collect  such  costs  from  such 
person  they  may  be  certified  against  ttie  City  upon  four  days' 
notice  to  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  and  upon  filing  a 
copy  of  such  certified  bill  with  the  Comptroller  that  officer 
shall  audit  and  pay  the  amount  thereof,  or  the  Attorney  may 
retain  the  same  out  of  any  moneys  in  his  hands  belonging  to 
the  Corporation. 

"Sec.  3.  No  certiorari  or  writ  of  error  shall  be  brought  by 
the  said  Attorney  in  any  suit  in  which  judgment  shall  have 
been  given  against  the  Corporation,  unless  upon  a  report  of 
the  facts  by  the  said  attorney,  the  Common  Council  shall 
order  such  certiorari  or  writ  of  error  to  be  brought. 

"Sec.  4.  All  ordinances  or  parts  of  ordinances  inconsistent 
with  the  preceding  provisions  are  hereby  repealed." 

By  this  ordinance,  the  duties  of  the  Counsel  to  the  Corpora- 
tion and  the  Attorney  to  the  Corporation  were  for  the  first  time 
clearly  defined.  It  appears  that  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  or^ 
dinance  there  had  been  considerable  confusion  on  this  point.  The 
provision  as  to  the  salary  of  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  ap- 
pears to  us  at  this  date  to  be  somewhat  unique. 

The  First  "Counsel  to  the  Corporation." 
PETER  A.  COW  DREY  was  the  first  person  to  hold  the  of- 
fice of  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  as  thus  established,  and  he  re- 
mained in  office  from  May,  1839,  until  May  3I,  1842.  Mr.  Cow- 
drey's  office  was  at  No.  140  Nassau  street.  The  Attorney  to  the 
Corporation  during  that  period  was  John  McKeon,  of  No.  109 
Fulton  street,  and  the  Public  Administrator,  Elijah  Morrill,  of 


43 

No.  4  Spruce  street.    The  salary  of  the  Public  Administrator  at 
that  time  was  $1,250  per  annum. 

On  January  22,  1841,  by  an  ordinance  of  the  Common  Council, 
the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  was  allovved  the  sum  of  $1,200  in 
lieu  of  all  charges  for  Assistants  and  Clerk  hire,  but  the  amount 
was  reduced  to  $600  by  the  "Salary  Bill"  passed  September  12, 
1842.  The  salary  of  the  Attorney  to  the  Corporation  had  been 
fixed  by  the  ordinance  of  1839  at  $2,250,  but  was  reduced  by  reso- 
lution passed  May  29,  1844,  to  $2,000. 

The  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  the  Attorney  and  the  Public 
Administrator  during  the  period  I  am  now  describing  transacted 
the  public  business  in  their  private  offices  in  connection  with 
their  own  law  business. 

Up  to  the  year  1849  the  offices  of  the  "Counsel  to  the  Corpora- 
tion," "Attorney  to  the  Corporation"  and  "Public  Adminis- 
trator," were  separate  and  distinct ;  each  of  these  officials  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  Common  Council. 

It  might  be  mentioned  here  that  the  office  of  Public  Adminis- 
trator continued  to  be  a  bureau  of  the  Law  Department  from 
April  2,  1849,  until  May,  1895,  when,  by  an  Act  of  the  Legis- 
lature, it  was  made  a  separate  bureau  and  the  power  to  appoint 
and  remove  the  Public  Administrator  was  vested  in  the  Surro- 
gates of  New  York  County. 

DAVID  GRAHAM,  Jr.,  succeeded  Peter  A.  Cowdrey  as  Coun- 
sel to  the  Corporation,  and  held  the  office  from  ]\Iay  31,  1842,  to 
May  9,  1843.  Mr.  Graham's  office  was  at  the  corner  of  Beekman 
and  Nassau  streets.  At  this  period  the  Attorney  to  the  Corpora- 
tion was  Alexander  W.  Bradford,  of  No.  51  William  street,  and 
the  Public  Administrator  Edgar  Ketchum,  of  No.  56  John  street. 

The  oldest  record  in  the  present  Corporation  Counsel's  office 
is  a  Register  containing  the  actions  pending  in  1842,  transferred 
from  Peter  A.  Cowdrey  to  David  Graham,  Jr.  Whatever  records 
there  were  prior  to  that  date  were  probably  contained  in  the 
private  registers  of  the  different  counsel. 


44 

PETER  A.  COWDREY  was  reappointed  Counsel  to  the  Cor- 
poration on  May  9,  1843,  ^^^  held  office  during  the  years  1843 
and  1844. 

SAMUEL  J.  TILDEN  was  Attorney  to  the  Corporation  dur- 
ing Mr.  Cowdrey's  second  term  of  office.  He  was  later  elected 
Governor  of  the  State  and  was  the  Democratic  candidate  for 
President  of  the  United  States  against  Rutherford  B.  Hayes.  Mr. 
Tilden  had  an  office  at  No.  14  Pine  street.  He  had  a  Clerk,  a 
Marshal  and  a  Constable  as  his  office  force.  The  Public  Admin- 
istrator during  this  period  was  William  M.  Mitchell,  whose  office 
was  at  No.  52  John  street. 

The  salary  of  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  was  fixed,  in  the  lat- 
ter part  of  1843,  at  $3,000,  the  salary  of  the  Attorney  to  the  Cor- 
poration at  $2,500  and  the  salary  of  the  Public  Administrator  at 
$1,250. 

JOHN  LEVERIDGE,  of  No.  145  Cherry  street,  was  appoint- 
ed Counsel  to  the  Corporation  in  1844;  Stephen  Sammons,  of  No. 
7  Chambers  street,  was  Attorney  to  the  Corporation,  and  Harris 
Wilson,  of  No.  13  Chambers  street.  Public  Administrator.  A 
resolution,  passed  May  29,  1844,  reduced  the  salary  of  Counsel 
to  the  Corporation  to  $2,000,  but  allowed  $1,600  for  Clerk  hire. 

JAMES  T.  BRADY  was  appointed  Counsel  to  the  Corpora- 
tion in  1845,  a"<^^  Peter  B.  Sweeny  and  three  other  persons  were 
employed  as  Clerks  in  the  office.  Allan  W.  Sniffen  was  appoint- 
ed as  Attorney  to  the  Corporation  and  H.  P.  Wanmaker,  Public 
Administrator.  James  T.  Brady  was  a  brother  of  John  R.  Brady, 
a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  1846  Eugene  Casserly  suc- 
ceeded Allan  W.  Sniffen  as  Attorney  to  the  Corporation. 

WILLIS  HALL  was  appointed  Counsel  to  the  Corporation 
in  1847;  ^6  had  previously  held  the  position  of  Attorney  General 
of  the  State  of  New  York;  James  Green  was  appointed  as  his  As- 
sistant and  he  was  allowed  three  Clerks.  Theodore  E.  Tomlin- 
son  was  appointed  Attorney  to  the  Corporation  and  James  S. 
Thayer,  Public  Administrator.    The  office  of  Counsel  to  the  Cor- 


45 

poration  at  that  period  was  at  No,  14  Wall  street,  and  the  office 
of  the  Attorney  to  the  Corporation  in  the  "Old  Alms  House;" 
the  office  of  the  Public  Administrator  was  at  No.  7  Nassau  street. 

Mr.  Hall  continued  to  act  as  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  until 
May,  1849. 

In  1847  ^  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Common  Council  re- 
citing the  fact  that  the  former  resolution  of  May  29,  1844,  had 
limited  the  salary  of  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  to  $2,000,  and 
that  bills  had  been  presented  to  the  Joint  Finance  Committee 
amounting  to  nearly  $25,000,  for  alleged  extra  services  rendered 
by  persons  theretofore  occupying  the  situation  of  Counsel  to  the 
Corporation  in  violation  of  the  spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of  the 
ordinance  allowing  a  definite  salary  to  the  Counsel,  in  lieu  of  any 
and  all  fees,  and  directing  that  the  salary  of  $2,000,  and  the" allow- 
ance of  $1,600,  for  ClefK  hire  was  intended  to  cover  all  disburse- 
ments for  legal  servic^.s  of  every  kind  rendered  by  the  Counsel 
and  refusing  to  audit  and  allow  any  bills  for  additional  services. 

In  May,  1848,  however,  another  ordinance  was  passed  creating 
a  department  to  the  city  government  to  be  known  as  the  Law 
Department,  "the  chief  officer  whereof  shall  be  denominated  as 
the  Council  of  the  Corporation"  (spelled  in  that  manner)  and 
ordering  that  the  said  officer  should  keep  his  office  in  rooms  in 
the  City  Hall ;  that  he  should  be  appointed  by  the  Common  Coun- 
cil and  receive  a  salary  of  $3,500  per  annum,  which  salary  should 
be  in  full  for  all  services  as  Attorney,  Counsel,  Solicitor,  Proctor, 
or  Conveyancer,  and  that  the  said  salary  should  be  in  lieu  of  all 
costs  at  law  or  in  equity  and  of  all  fees  and  other  charges  against 
the  Corporation,  Supervisors  or  Departments, 

The  ordinance  further  provided  that  the  "Council"  should  take 
an  oath  of  office  and  file  a  bond  in  the  sum  of  $2,000,  before  en- 
tering upon  his  duties,  and  that  he  should  attend  to  all  business 
not  committed  to  the  Attorney  of  the  Corporation. 

The  ordinance  also  provided  that  all  fees  and  costs  collected 
should  be  paid  into  the  City  Treasury  at  the  close  of  each  month. 


46 

and  that  two  Clerks  might  be  appointed,  one  at  a  salary  of  $i,ooo 
and  the  other  at  a  salary  of  $600. 

The  Registers  of  the  present  Law  Department  are  continuous, 
beginning  with  the  year  1848.  The  resolution  of  May,  1848, 
therefore  accomplished  at  least  one  good  result  by  providing  for 
a  separate  office  where  proper  books  and  records  might  be  kept. 

The  "Law  Department"  Created  by  the  Legislature,  1849  to  1856. 

The  Law  Department  was  first  created  by  legislative  authority 
as  an  executive  department  of  The  City  of  New  York  by  the  Act 
of  April  2,  1849,  which  amended  the  Charter  of  The  City  of  New 
York. 

By  this  Act  the  office  of  "Counsel  to  the  Corporation"  was 
made  elective.  The  term  of  office  was  fixed  at  three  years.  The 
office  of  the  "Attorney  to  the  Corporation"  was  made  a  bureau  of 
the  Law  Department,  the  head  of  which  was  to  be  known  as  the 
"Corporation  Attorney."  The  office  of  the  Public  Administrator 
was  also  made  a  bureau  of  the  Law  Department  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  both  of  these  officers  was  vested  in  the  Counsel  to  the 
Corporation. 

The  section  of  the  law  referred  to,  said : 

"There  shall  be  an  executive  department,  known  as  the 
'Law  Department,'  which  shall  have  the  charge  of  and  con- 
duct all  the  law  business  of  the  corporation  and  of  the  de- 
partments thereof  and  all  other  law  business  in  which  the 
City  shall  be  interested  when  so  ordered  by  the  corporation ; 
and  shall  have  the  charge  of  and  conduct  the  legal  proceed- 
ings necessary  in  opening,  widening,  or  altering  streets ;  and 
draw  the  leases,  deeds  and  other  papers  connected  with  the 
Finance  Department;  and  the  chief  officer  thereof  shall  be 
called  the  'Counsel  to  the  Corporation.'  " 

HENRY  E.  DAVIES  (the  father  of  Julien  T.  Davies)  was  the 
first  person  elected  to  the  office  of  Counsel  to  the  Corporation, 
which  position  he  held  from  May,  1849,  to  December  31,  1852. 
Mr.  Davies  reappointed  Theodore  E.  Tomlinson  as  Corporation 


47 

Attorney  and  James  S.  Thayer  as  Public  Administrator.  After 
the  expiration  of  his  term  of  office,  he  formed  the  partnership  of 
Da  vies  &  Scudder  (Henry  J.  Scudder),  and  in  that  firm  Mr.  James 
C.  Carter  filled  the  position  of  managing  clerk.  Henry  E.  Davies 
was  elected  to  the  Supreme  Court  bench  and  was  a  Justice  of  that 
Court  from  1855  until  1859,  when  he  was  elected  a  Judge  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals  for  a  term  of  eight  years.  During  the  last  two 
years  of  his  term  he  was  Chief  Judge  of  that  Court. 

ROBERT  J.  DILLON  was  the  next  Counsel  to  the  Corpora- 
tion. He  was  elected  in  1852  and  held  office  from  January  i,  1853, 
to  January  i,  1856.  The  salary  of  the  Counsel  to  the  Corporation 
was  $3,500  at  this  time,  but  he  was  allowed  to  tax  fees  in  street 
opening  proceedings.  By  an  act  of  the  Legislature  passed  April 
I,  1854,  a  yearly  allowance  of  $6,500  was  granted  in  lieu  of  all  fees 
in  street  opening  matters.  This  gave  the  Corporation  Counsel  a 
total  salary  of  $10,000.  Daniel  E.  Sickles  was  Corporation  At- 
torney during  the  first  year  of  this  administration  and  Peter  B. 
Sweeny  was  Public  Administrator.  While  Mr.  Dillon  was  Cor- 
poration Counsel,  Abraham  R.  Lawrence,  subsequently  a  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  became  a  Clerk  in  the  office.  Daniel  E. 
Sickles,  the  Corporation  Attorney  under  Mr.  Dillon,  was  suc- 
ceeded by  John  B.  Haskin.  The  offices  of  all  of  the  branches  of 
the  Law  Departrhent  at  that  time  were  located  at  No.  51  Cham- 
bers street. 

LORENZO  B.  SHEPARD  (the  father  of  Edward  M.  Shep- 
ard)  was  the  last  Corporation  Counsel  in  the  period  that  I  am 
now  describing  and  he  held  office  from  January  i,  1856,  until  the 
time  of  his  death  in  September,  1856.  George  H.  Purser  was 
Corporation  Attorney  during  that  time  and  Peter  B.  Sweeny  was 
Public  Administrator. 

RICHARD  BUSTLED  was  appointed  in  1856  to  fill  the  un- 
expired term  of  Mr.  Shepard,  and  was  elected  in  the  fall  of  that 
year  to  serve  for  the  three  years  commencing  on  January  i,  1857, 
and  ending  on  January  i,  i860. 


48 

The  Revised  Ordinances  of  1856  set  forth  very  fully  the  duties 
of  the  Law  Department  and  its  two  bureaus,  but  the  ordinances 
are  substantially  a  re-enactment  of  thie  Act  of  the  Legislature 
passed  in  1849. 

This  completes  the  list  of  Corporation  Counsels  down  to  the  year 
1857,  and  I  have  already  given,  at  the  beginning  of  this  report,  the 
names  of  the  persons  holding  office  during  the  fifty  years  from  1857 
to  1907. 

The  New  York  Office  in  1856. 

It  is  very  interesting  to  compare  the  office  as  it  existed  in  1856 
with  the  Department  at  the  close  of  1906. 

Mr.  Campbell,  our  Chief  Clerk,  informs  me  that  he  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  position  of  Copyist  in  1857  by  Hon.  Abraham  R. 
Lawrence,  who  was  an  Assistant  under  the  then  Corporation  Coun- 
sel, Hon.  Richard  Busteed.  Mr.  Busteed  had  at  that  time  two 
Assistants,  Abraham  R.  Lawrence  and  Moses  Ely.  The  entire  force 
of  the  office,  in  addition  to  the  Corporation  Counsel,  consisted  of  the 
Assistant  just  named,  a  Street  Clerk,  a  Real  Estate  Clerk,  a  Law 
Clerk,  two  Copyists  and  one  Messenger — nine  persons  in  all. 

The  office  of  the  Law  Department  in  1857  was  on  the  second 
floor  of  No.  237  Broadway.  It  continued  there  until  i860,  when  it 
was  removed  to  No.  82  Nassau  street.  In  1874,  while  Hon.  E. 
Delafield  Smith  was  Corporation  Counsel,  the  offices  were  re- 
moved to  the  "Staats  Zeitung"'  Building  at  No.  2  Tryon  Row, 
where  they  remained  until  the  latter  part  of  1906.  At  that  time 
the  present  quarters  in  the  new  Hall  of  Records,  although  not 
completed,  were  made  tenantable  and  the  main  office  is  now  com« 
fortably  housed  in  that  beautiful  building. 

Mr.  William  C.  Trull,  now  an  eminent  member  of  our  bar, 
became  connected  with  the  office  of  the  Corporation  Counsel  in 
1861,  when  Greene  C.  Bronson  filled  that  office.  Mr.  Trull  and 
Henry  H.  Anderson  were  Assistants.  In  1863  John  E.  Develin 
succeeded  Judge  Bronson  and  John  K.  Hackett  was  appointed  to 
succeed  Mr.  Anderson.  Mr.  Trull  continued  in  office  during  the 
term  of  Mr.  Develin,  who  was  succeeded  by  Hon.  Richard  O'Gor- 


49 

man.    Mr.  David  J.  Dean,  of  whom  I  shall  have  occasion  to  speak 
hereafter,  became  Judge  O'Gorman's  Assistant. 

In  1856  the  entire  appropriation  for  the  Law  Department,  in- 
cluding the  salary  of  the  Corporation  Counsel,  clerk  hire  and 
office  rent  and  all  disbursements,  was  $36,550.  In  1906  the  ap- 
propriations for  the  Corporation  Counsel's  office  amounted  to 
$685,000,  and  this  sum  did  not  include  office  rent,  printing,  sta- 
tionery or  the  cost  of  conducting  the  Bureau  of  Street  Openings, 
which  is  paid  from  the  "Street  and  Park  Opening  Fund."  But 
during  the  same  period  the  number  of  persons  employed  had  in- 
creased from  9  to  326,  and  the  business  transacted  had  also  in- 
creased at  a  similar  rate. 

The  Office  as  a  Stepping  Stone  to  the  Bench. 

The  office  of  Corporation  Counsel  has  been  popularly  consid- 
ered, and  not  without  reason,  as  a  stepping  stone  to  the  bench. 

Of  the  gentlemen  who  have  filled  the  office  of  Corporation 
Counsel  of  The  City  of  New  York,  the  following  twelve  have 
been  elevated  to  seats  on  the  bench  of  State  and  Federal  Courts : 

Ogden  Edwards.  Richard  O'Gorman. 

Michael  UllshoefYer.  George  P.  Andrews. 

Robert  Emmett.  E.  Henry  Lacombe. 

Henry  E.  Davies.  Morgan  J.  O'Brien. 

Richard  Busteed.  Henry  R.  Beekman. 

Greene  C.  Bronson.  Francis  M.  Scott. 

Almet  F.  Jenks  and  Joseph  A.  Burr,  former  Corporation  Coun- 
sels of  The  City  of  Brooklyn,  are  now  Justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  Kings  County. 

Nineteen  of  the  Assistants  of  the  Corporation  Counsel  have 
also  been  promoted  to  the  bench. 

John  K.  Hackett  became  Recorder  of  the  City. 

Howard  J.  Forker  is  a  Justice  of  Special  Sessions,  Brooklyn. 

Martin  T.  McMahon  was  elected  a  Judge  of  the  Court  of 
General  Sessions. 


50 

Abraham  R.  Lawrence,  Charles  L.  Guy,  John  J,  Brady,  Wil- 
liam J.  Carr,  Henry  Bischoff,  Jr.,  and  John  Proctor  Clarke  be- 
came Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  last  named  is  now  one 
of  the  Justices  of  the  Appellate  Division,  First  Department. 

Charles  S.  Whitman,  John  B.  Mayo,  Henry  J.  Steinert,  Wil- 
liam A.  Sweetser,  Arthur  C.  Butts,  Charles  N.  Harris  and  Fred- 
eric L.  Kernochan  were  appointed  City  Magistrates. 

Henry  W.  Unger  was  appointed  a  Justice  of  the  Municipal 
Court,  Manhattan. 

Philip  D.  Meagher  and  John  J.  Walsh  are  now  Municipal 
Court  Justices  in  Brooklyn. 

Altogether  thirty-three  Corporation  Counsels  or  Assistants 
have  been  elected  or  appointed  to  judicial  positions. 

A  Famous  Assistant. 

Probably  one  of  the  most  justly  famous  Assistants  of  the  Cor- 
poration Counsel  since  the  establishment  of  the  office  was  David 
J.  Dean.  As  a  jurisconsult  in  Municipal  law  he  had  no  superior. 
The  sweetness  of  his  disposition  and  the  nobleness  of  his  char- 
acter are  still  remembered  by  those  who  were  his  associates. 
His  capacity  for  hard  work  was  unlimited,  and  yet  at  any  time 
he  would  turn  aside  from  the  most  exacting  labors  to  open  the 
great  storehouses  of  his  legal  knowledge  to  the  humblest  As- 
sistant. He  was  as  modest  as  he  was  learned,  and  as  unassuming 
as  he  was  profound.  A  man  among  men,  his  daily  life  was 
adorned  by  unostentatious  piety.  He  won  and  retained  the 
admiration  and  respect  of  all  his  associates,  to  whom  he  was 
not  only  the  ever  ready  and  willing  counsellor,  but  also  the 
self-sacrificing  and  sympathetic  friend.  As  a  soldier  he  served 
his  country.  As  a  lawyer  he  ministered  at  the  altar  of  justice 
of  this  City  and  State.  The  day  is  yet  far  distant  when  his  fame 
will  be  forgotten  and  his  name  unspoken  by  those  who  knew 
and  loved  him. 


Prominent  Lawyers  Formerly  Associated  with  the  Office. 

A  large  number  of  lawyers  who  are  now  prominent  at  the 
Bar  have  been  connected  at  various  times  with  this  Department, 
and  many  of  them  received  their  best  training  while  serving  as 
members  of  the  office  staff.  In  addition  to  the  persons  who  have 
held  the  office  of  Corporation  Counsel  or  who  have  been  ele- 
vated to  the  Bench  I  might  mention  the  following: 

Francis  L.  Stetson,  No.  35  Wall  street,  New  York. 

William  L.  Turner,  No.  84  Cotton  Exchange,  New  York. 

William  C.  Trull,  No.  32  Nassau  street,  New  York. 

William  H.  Rand,  No.  63  Wall  street.  New  York. 

Rollin  M,  Morgan,  No.  38  Park  row.  New  York. 

Francis  L.  Wellman,  No.  15  Wall  street,  New  York. 

Daniel  E.  Sickles,  No.  23  Fifth  avenue.  New  York. 

Luke  D.  Stapleton,  No.  15  William  street,  New  York. 

R.  Percy  Chittenden,  No.  189  Montague  street,  Brooklyn. 

James  McKeen,  No.  40  Wall  street.  New  York. 

Walter  S.  Brewster,  No.  40  Wall  street.  New  York. 

Herbert  B.  Brush,  No.  189  Montague  street,  Brooklyn. 

Chase  Mellen,  No.  60  Wall  street,  New  York. 

Henry  De  Forest  Baldwin,  No.  49  Wall  street,  New  York. 

John  H.  Judge,  No.  29  Broadway,  New  York. 

Frank  A.  Irish,  No.  40  Wall  street.  New  York. 

Arthur  H.  Masten,  No.  49  Wall  street.  New  York. . 

Thomas  P.  Wickes,  Englewood,  N,  J. 

Charles  Blandy,  Xo.  7  Wall  street.  New  York. 

Charles  W.  Ridgway,  No.  100  Broadway,  New  York. 

Thomas  F.  Grady,  No.  74  Broadway,  New  York. 

Thomas  E.  Rush,  No.  30  Broad  street,  New  York. 

Montgomery  Hare,  No.  30  Broad  street,  New  York. 

Arthur  F.  Cosby,  No.  32  Nassau  street,  New  York. 

Martin  Saxe,  No.  280  Broadway,  New  York. 

Adrian  T.  Kiernan,  No.  35  Nassau  street.  New  York. 

Edward  H.  Hawke,  Jr.,  No.  66  Broadway,  New  York. 

David  Rumsey,  No.  32  Liberty  street.  New  York. 


52 

Gratz  Nathan,  No.  io8  Fulton,  street,  Nevv.<  York, 
Peter  B.   Sweeny,   Seventy-second  street  and   Riverside  drive, 
New  York. 

Robert  L.  Wensley,  No.  ii  Broadway,  New  York. 
Thomas  F.  Gilroy,  Jr.,  No.  49  Wall  street,  New  York. 
William  W.  Ladd,  No,  20  Nassau  street.  New  York. 
Henry  A.  Brann,  No.  302  Broadway,  New  York. 
Henry  B.  Twombly,  No.  170  Broadway,  New  York, 
Edward  J,  McGuire,  No.  52  Wall  street,  New  York, 
John  Walsh,  No,  60  Wall  street,  New  Yoi-k, 
Frank  A.  Acer,  No,  277  Broadway,  New  York, 
Andrew  D,  Parker,  No,  220  Broadway,  New  York. 
Matthew  C.  Fleming,  No.  71  Broadway,  New  York. 
Charles  V.  Gabriel,  No.  320  Broadway,  New  York. 
Arthur  Berry,  No.  180  Broadway,  New  York. 
Carroll  Berry,  No.  180  Broadway,  New  York. 
Oscar  F.  G.  Megie,  No.  302  Broadway,  New  York, 
Alexander  McKinney,  No,  215  Montague  street,  Brooklyn. 
William  C.  Courtney,  No,  350  Fulton  street,  Brooklyn. 
Michael  E,  Finnigan,  No,  44  Court  street,  Brooklyn. 
John  E,  Walker,  No.  164  Montague  street,  Brooklyn. 
Samuel  H.  Evins,  No,  30  Broad  street.  New  York, 
Albert  E,  Hadlock,  No,  135  Broadway,  New  York, 
William  H.  Hutchinson,  No,  170  Broadway,  New  York. 
Alvin  S.  Hall,  No.  37  Liberty  street,  New  York. 
George  Landon,  No.  37  Liberty  street.  New  York, 
William  J,  O'SuUivan,  No.  256  Broadway,  New  York. 
Wilmot  T,  Cox,  No.  49  Wall  street.  New  York, 
John  J,  Townsend,  No,  45  Cedar  street.  New  York. 
Leroy  D,  Ball,  No,  290  Broadway,  New  York. 
Edwin  L.  Abbott,  No,  302  Broadway,  New  York. 
John  A.  Beall,  No,  31  Liberty  street,  New  York. 
Thomas  J,  O'Callaghan,  No,  200  Broadway,  New  York. 
Alfred  J,  Talley,  No.  299  Broadway,  New  York, 
John  F,  Cowan,  No,  280  Broadway,  New  York, 
Sidney  J,  Cowen,  No,  302  Broadway,  New  York. 


53 

E.  Crosby  Kindleberger,  District  Attorney's  office. 
John  C.  Wait,  No.  220  Broadway,  New  York. 
George  Hill,  No.  41  Park  row,  New  York. 
Oliver  C.  Semple,  No.  52  William  street,  New  York. 
Harold  S.  Rankine,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 
Henry  M.  Powell,  No.  280  Broadway,  New  York. 
Thomas  B.  Qarkson,  No.  170  Broadway,  New  York. 
Harold  M.  Smith,  Hall  of  Records. 
Cornelius  J.  Earley,  No.  271  Broadway,  New  York. 
Lamont  McLoughlin,  No.  309  Broadway,  New  York. 
Spencer  G.  McNeary,  No.  99  Nassau  street,  New  York. 
George  E.  Blackwell,  No.  63  Wall  street,  New  York. 
Denis  O'Leary,  Long  Island  City. 
William  E.  Ewing,  No.  176  Broadway,  New  York. 
Charles  Malloy,  No.  2^^  Broadway,  New  York. 
Richard  J.  Morrisson,  No.  135  Broadway,  New  York. 
George  Lavelle,  No.  220  Broadway,  New  York. 
Woolsey  Carmalt,  No.  82  Beaver  street,  New  York. 
William  A.  Boyd,  No.  146  Broadway,  New  York. 
Louis  Hanneman,  Xo.  140  Nassau  street,  New  York. 
Charles  S.  Beardsley,  No.  32  Nassau  street,  New  York. 
Louis  Steckler,  No.  302  Broadway,  New  York. 
Charles  E.  Lydecker,  No.' 30  Broad  street.  New  York. 
John  G.  H.  ]\Ieyers,  No.  150  Nassau  street,  New  York. 
William  M.  Hoes.  No.  69  Wall  street,  New  York. 
Robert  Grier  Monroe,  No.  15  Wall  street.  New  York. 
John  Callahan,  Xo.  280  Broadway,  New  York. 
P.  J.  Walsh,  Supreme  Court. 

Albert  E.  Henschel,  X^o.  11  Broadway,  New  York. 
Robert  C.  Beatty,  X^o.  43  Cedar  street,  X^ew  York. 
Albert  Bach,  No.  66  Broadway,  New  York. 
Fielding  L.  Marshall,  Xo.  32  X'^assau  street.  New  York. 
Douglas  Mathewson,  No.  265  Broadway,  New  York. 
Merle  O.  St.  John,  No.  31  Nassau  street.  New  York. 
William  F.  Wilber,  No.  32  Nassau  street.  New  York. 
Simon  C.  Noot,  No.  320  Broadway,  New  York. 


54 

Richard  H.  Smith,  No.  277  Broadway,  New  York. 

Ralph  R.  Jacobs,  No.  367  Fulton  street,  Brooklyn. 

Peter  P.  Smith,  County  Court  House,  Brooklyn. 

Joseph  P.  Conway,  No.  44  Court  street,  Brooklyn. 

A  few  of  the  men  just  mentioned  left  the  department  because  of 
political  changes,  but  the  great  majority  of  them  left  the  service 
voluntarily  to  enter  private  practice,  because  it  offered  greater 
remuneration. 

Long  Service  of  Some  Present  Employees. 

A  number  of  persons  are  now  employed  in  the  department  who 
have  been  in  the  service  for  a  long  term  of  years.  Those  on  the 
present  payroll  who  have  served  continuously  for  more  than  fifteen 
years  are  as  follows: 

Andrew  T.  Campbell,  Chief  Clerk,  fifty  years. 

William  J.  Hodge,  Messenger,  forty-one  years. 

Richard  B.  Greenwood,  Assistant  (Brooklyn  Office),  thirty-two 
years. 

James  M.  Valles,  Librarian,  thirty-two  years. 

James  J,  McGrath,  Clerk  (Bureau  of  Penalties),  thirty-two  years. 

Edwin  J.  Freedman,  Assistant,  twenty-six  years. 

William  H.  Lake,  Examiner,  twenty-three  years. 

Thomas  E.  Kennedy,  Messenger,  twenty-three  years. 

George  L.  Sterling,  Assistant,  twenty-two  years. 

John  L.  O'Brien,  Assistant,  twenty-two  years. 

John  H.  Greener,  Assistant  Chief  Clerk,  twenty-one  years. 

Charles  A.  O'Neil,  Assistant,  twenty  years. 

Charles  D.  Olendorf,  Assistant,  eighteen  years. 

William  E.  Fay,  Clerk  (Bureau  of  Penalties),  eighteen  years. 

Jeremiah  Maher,  Clerk,  eighteen  years. 

A.  T.  Campbell,  Jr.,  Assistant,  eighteen  years. 

Terence  Farley,  Assistant,  seventeen  years. 

Patrick  H.  Curran,  Process  Server  (Bureau  of  Penalties),  seven- 
teen years. 

Theodore  Connoly,  Assistant,  sixteen  years. 


55 

Among  the  female  Stenographers  one  has  been  in  the  office  for 
twenty  years,  one  for  nineteen  years,  four  for  eighteen  years,  one 
for  sixteen  years  and  one  for  fifteen  years. 

"Counselor  Nolan." 

Soon  after  Mr.  Whalen  assumed  office,  he  appointed  Thomas  F. 
Nolan  as  an  Assistant  in  the  Bureau  of  Penalties. 

The  "Great  Irish  Barrister"  continued  a  member  of  the  office 
force  until  the  time  of  his  death  in  1900.  He  was  a  well-known 
figure  in  all  of  our  courts,  and  a  volume  of  reminiscences  and  sayings 
of  the  Counselor  has  been  published.  It  is  probable  that  he  was 
not  responsible  for  a  large  part  of  the  stories  that  are  attributed  to 
him,  but  he  had  a  keen  and  ready  wit,  which,  coupled  with  a  fine, 
rich  brogue,  made  him  a  most  interesting  personality. 

He  will  be  long  remembered  as  one  of  the  most  picturesque 
characters  in  the  legal  fraternity. 

Conditions  Prior  to  Consolidation  of  the  Greater  New  York. 

At  the  close  of  the  year  1897,  just  prior  to  consolidation,  when 
the  City  and  the  County  of  New  York  were  coterminus,  fifty-six 
persons  were  connected  with  the  main  office  of  the  Law  Depart- 
ment, including  twelve  Assistants  and  five  Junior  Assistants.  In 
the  Bureau  of  Street  Opening  there  were  in  all  forty-three  persons, 
including  Assistants.  In  the  Bureau  of  the  Corporation  Attorney, 
changed  to  the  "Bureau  of  Penalties"  by  the  Charter  of  1897, 
there  were  nine  persons.  To  the  Department  of  Street  Improve- 
ments of  the  Twenty-third  and  Twenty-fourth  Wards,  one  Assist- 
ant was  assigned,. and  there  were  but  four  persons  in  the  Bureau 
for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes.  The  entire  force 
of  the  Law  Department  then  numbered  one  hundred  and  fourteen. 

The  Corporation  Counsel's  office  before  consolidation  was  a 
great  law  office. 

In  the  year  1897  the  number  of  actions  and  proceedings  pending 
at  the  close  of  that  year  was  3,925.     The  number  of  actions  and 


56 

proceedings  commenced  during  the  year  was  3,329.  The  number 
of  actions  tried  in  court  was  138.  The  number  of  appeals  argued 
at  the  Appellate  Division  and  Appellate  Term  of  the  Supreme  Court 
was  ninety-two.  The  number  of  appeals  argued  in  the  Court  of 
Appeals  was  thirty.  The  number  of  appeals  argued  in  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  was  one,  and  the  number  of  appeals 
argued  in  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  was  one. 

.The  Greater  New  York. 

On  January  i,  1898,  The  Greater  New  York  Charter  took  effect, 
under  the  provisions  of  which  ninety-four  municipal  corporations, 
including  three  cities  and  four  counties,  were  welded  by  law  into 
one  great  city.  The  Law  Department  had  not  only  its  own  organ- 
ization and  system  to  establish,  but  that  of  other  departments  and 
branches  of  the  City  government.  A  multitude  of  questions  suddenly 
arose,  which  in  many  cases  were  of  the  utmost  importance.  It  seemed 
as  if  every  question  of  law  that  could  arise,  and  that,  too,  in  its 
most  complicated  form,  was  referred  to  the  Corporation  Counsel 
for  advice.  Probably  no  head  of  a  law  department  was  ever  called 
upon  to  construe  so  many  apparently  conflicting  laws  and  advise 
heuds  of  departments  as  to  the  proper  course  to  pursue.  Some  of 
th<  se  question  were  of  the  gravest  importance,  involving  such 
matters  as  the  City's  debt  limit,  the  status  of  various  bond  issues, 
and  Civil  Service  questions  brought  about  by  the  consolidation  of 
counties,  cities,  villages,  school  districts,  etc. 

Most  of  this  work  fell  upon  the  shoulders  of  two  Assitants  irt 
the  office,  Theodore  Connoly  and  George  L.  Sterling,  and  to  those 
two  men  there  is  due  from  this  City  a  large  debt  of  recognition 
and  gratitude. 

After  consolidation  under  the  Charter  of  1897,  the  marvellous 
changes  and  stupendous  growth  commenced  which  have  made  the 
Corporation  Counsel's  office  of  New  York  beyond  all  doubt  the 
largest  law  office  in  the  world. 


57 

Growth  of  Business  Transacted. 

Immediately  after  consolidation,  the  business  of  the  Law  De- 
partment began  to  increase  rapidly.  The  following  comparative 
table  showing  the  results  accomplished  during  the  first  year  of  the 
Greater  City  and  the  year  1906  will  illustrate  this  point : 

1898.  1906. 
Number    of    action    and    proceedings 

pending  in  main  office  at  close  of 

year , 5,512  25,440 

Number  of  actions  tried  in  court.  ...  118  389 
Number  of  Appeals  argued  at  Appellate 

Division    157  204 

Number  of  appeals  argued  at  Court  of 

Appeals  35  51 

Number  of  motions  argued 616  1,124 

Number  of  written  opinions  rendered 

to  departments    523  1,766 

Number  of  contracts  drafted,  approved 

as  to  form,  etc 636  2,957 

Number  of  judgments  against  City...                  2,015  394 

Amount  of  judgments  against  City.  .  .  $1,454,214  04  $506,334  09 

Number  of  judgments  in  favor  of  City.                       88  200 

Amount  of  judgments  in  favor  of  City.        $17,238  48  $76,210  21 

Amount  collected  by  main  office 18,727  88  170,932  87 

Amount  collected  by  whole  department .          60,748  50  323,610  52 

Number  of  persons  in  department....                      115  321 


The  great  increases  will  be  noted  in  each  of  the  above  items 
except  the  number  of  judgments  against  the  City  and  the 
amount  of  those  judgments.  The  Corporation  Counsel  is  very 
glad  to  be  able  to  report  that  the  number  and  amount  of  such 
judgments  was  less  in  1906  than  in  any  year  since  consolidation. 


58 

PRESENT   ORGANIZATION   OF   THE  DEPARTMENT. 

Section  255  of  the  Charter  provides:  "There  shall  be  a  Law 
Department  of  The  City  of  New  York,  the  head  of  which  shall 
be  called  the  Corporation  Counsel,  who  shall  be  the  attorney 
and  counsel  of  The  City  of  New  York,  the  Mayor,  Board  of 
Aldermen,  and  each  and  every  officer,  Board  and  Department  of 
said  City." 

By  virtue  of  section  257  of  the  Charter,  there  must  be  an 
office  of  the  Corporation  Counsel  located  in  the  Borough  of 
Brooklyn.  In  his  discretion,  the  Corporation  Counsel  may 
establish  branch  offices  in  each  of  the  boroughs  of  Richmond. 
Queens  and  The  Bronx.  Connected  with  and  a  part  of  the  Law 
Department  are  the  Bureau  of  Street  Openings,  the  Bureau  of 
Penalties  and  the  Bureau  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Per- 
sonal Taxes.  There  are  also  assistants  of  the  Corporation  Coun- 
sel assigned  to  the  Tenement  House  Department  and  the  Bureau 
of  Public  Buildings. 

Section  255  of  the  Charter  further  provides  that  the  Corpora- 
tion Counsel  "shall  have  charge  and  conduct  of  the  legal  pro- 
ceedings necessary  in  opening,  widening,  the  altering  and  closing 
of  streets,  and  in  acquiring  real  estate  or  interest  therein  for 
the  City  by  condemnation  proceedings,  and  the  preparation  of 
all  leases,  deeds,  contracts,  bonds  and  other  legal  papers  of  the 
City  or  of  or  connected  with  any  Department,  Board  or  officer 
thereof,  and  he  shall  approve  as  to  form  all  contracts,  leases, 
deeds  and  other  legal  papers.  The  Corporation  Counsel,  except 
as  otherwise  herein  provided  for,  shall  have  the  right  to  institute 
actions  in  law  or  equity  and  proceedings  provided  by  the  Code 
of  Civil  Procedure  or  by  law  in  any  court.  State  or  National,  to 
maintain,  defend  or  establish  the  rights,  interests,  revenues, 
property,  privileges,  franchises  or  demands  of  the  City,  or  any 
part  or  portion  thereof  or  of  the  people  thereof,  or  to  collect  any 
money,  debts,  fines  or  penalties,  or  to  enforce  the  laws  and 
ordinances." 


59 

Under  the  authority  of  the  section  of  the  Charter  above 
cited,  the  Department  is  now  organized  as  follows: 

THE  MAIN  OFFICE,  in  the  Hall  of  Records,  Borough  of 
Manhattan. 

THE  BROOKLYN  BRANCH  OFFICE,  in  the  Borough 
Hall,  in  that  borough. 

THE  BUREAU  OF  STREET  OPENINGS,  at  No.  99  West 
Broadway,  Manhattan. 

THE  BUREAU  OF  PENALTIES,  at  No.  119  Nassau  street, 
Manhattan. 

THE  BUREAU  FOR  THE  COLLECTION  OF  ARREARS 
OF  PERSONAL  TAXES,  at  No.  280  Broadway,  Manhattan. 

THE  TENEMENT  HOUSE  DEPARTMENT  AND 
BUILDING  BUREAU  BRANCH  OFFICE,  at  No.  44  East 
Twenty-third  street,  Manhattan. 

THE  MAIN  OFFICE. 

Removal  of  Office. 

For  many  years  the  work  of  the  main  office  was  handicapped 
by  the  lack  of  proper  office  room  and  accommodations.  Several 
assistants  were  crowded  into  each  small  room  and  the  stenog- 
raphers and  clerks,  during  the  latter  years,  were  obliged  to  work 
under  conditions  which  would  not  have  been  tolerated  in  a 
factory  or  "sweatshop."  During  the  early  part  of  November, 
1906,  the  Corporation  Counsel  and  his  personal  staff  took  pos- 
session of  the  partly  finished  quarters  in  the  new  Hall  of  Records, 
and  the  moving  of  the  office  took  place  gradually  until  about 
December  15,  1906,  when  the  entire  force  was  installed  in  the 
new  building. 

It  was  necessary  to  move  the  records  and  papers  with  the 
utmost  care  to  prevent  confusion  and  the  work  was  not  com- 
pleted until  February  20,  1907.  The  papers  in  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  actions,  and  letters  and  other  documents  which 
probably  numbered  in  the  millions,  all  the  records  of  the  Law 


Department  for  fifty  years,  the  large  library  and  the  books  and 
papers  of  about  sixty  assistants  were  moved  with  almost  no 
interruption  of  business.  Considering  the  great  difficulty  of  the 
task  and  the  opportunities  for  losing  or  mislaying  papers  the 
moving  was  accomplished  in  a  most  orderly  and  successful 
manner. 

The  New  Building. 

The  new  quarters  in  the  Hall  of  Records  include  the  sixth, 
seventh  and  eighth  floors.  The  building  was  not  well  designed 
for  division  into  separate  offices  for  assistants,  and  the  con- 
tractor has  only  recently  completed  the  furnishings,  but  for  the 
first  time  in  many  years  the  office  staff  are  provided  with  large, 
well  lighted  rooms  in  which  their  work  may  be  done  under 
healthy  and  comfortable  conditions.  It  was  a  most  grateful 
change  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  these  improved  accommoda- 
tions will  result  in  a  greater  activity  and  efficiency  throughout 
the  office. 

The  Hall  of  Records  is  probably  as  nearly  fireproof  as  a 
building  can  be  made.  The  construction  throughout  is  of  steel 
and  masonry,  the  floors  are  of  mosaic,  the  walls  are  of  fireproof 
brick,  the  stairways,  wainscoting  and  door  and  window  frames 
are  of  marble.  New  furniture  was  provided  for  the  entire  build- 
ing. The  desks,  chairs  and  tables  are  made  of  mahogany  with 
marble  bases,  and  all  filing  cases,  bookcases,  wardrobes  and 
shelving  are  of  steel.  The  electric  lighting  fixtures  are  of  bronze 
and  are  unusually  handsome.  The  building  is  equipped  with  a 
vacuum  cleaning  system,  and  an  automatic  system  of  heating 
and  ventilation.  Filtered  ice  water  is  provided  at  a  tap  at  each 
basin.  Nothing  seems  to  have  been  omitted  which  was  neces- 
sary to  make  the  building  a  first  class,  up-to-date  structure,  and 
the  results  reflect  the  greatest  credit  on  the  architects,  engineers 
and  contractors  and  the  City  officials  who  were  employed  on  the 
work. 

The  library  of  the  Department,  containing  about  8,000 
volumes,  occupies  a  floor  space  of  about  32  feet  by  130  feet.    The 


6i 

law  books  are  arranged  in  steel  cases  built  in  alcoves  and  the 
room  is  well  supplied  with  reading  desks  and  tables,  making  it 
one  of  the  most  handsome  and  complete  law  libraries  in  the  City. 

The  rooms  provided  for  the  assistants  are  occupied  by  two  per- 
sons on  an  average,  and  each  desk  is  supplied  with  special  electric 
lighting,  a  telephone  extension  and  call  bells  for  stenographers 
and  office  boys. 

The  quarters  assigned  to  the  clerical  and  stenographic  force  are 
large,  airy  and  well  lighted. 

On  the  eighth  floor  several  very  large  rooms  are  devoted  to  the 
files  for  papers  in  "Done"  suits  and  proceedings,  communications, 
printed  papers  and  other  documents.  It  is  one  of  the  largest  sys- 
tems of  metal  files  ever  built. 

When  the  Hall  of  Records  was  designed  it  was  the  purpose  of 
the  Corporation  Counsel  to  bring  together  under  one  roof  all  of  the 
bureaus  and  branch  offices  except  the  one  in  Brooklyn,  but  the  De- 
partment had  increased  to  such  an  extent  by  the  time  the  building 
was  completed  that  it  was  found  impossible  to  accommodate  more 
than  the  main  ofiice,  and  the  time  will  surely  arrive,  and  perhaps 
it  may  not  be  many  years  hence,  when  even  the  main  office  will 
again  become  crowded. 

The  growth  of  the  Greater  New  York  is  marvellous,  and  the 
work  of  the  Law  Department  becomes  greater  in  volume  and  more 
complicated  in  its  nature  each  year. 

Reorganization  of  Main  Office. 
I  have  already  alluded  to  the  fact  that  while  the  Honorable  Wil- 
liam C.  Whitney  was  Counsel  to  the  Corporation,  the  business  of 
the  main  office  had  grown  to  such  an  extent  that  it  became  neces- 
sary to  reorganize  the  office,  and  that  Mr.  Whitney  first  inaugurated 
the  plan  of  dividing  the  office  work  according  to  the  subjet  matter 
involved,  and  assigning  each  distinctive  class  of  litigation  to  a 
particular  Assistant.  That  system  was  continued  by  the  Hon. 
George  P.  Andrews,  who  succeeded  Mr.  Whitney,  and  by  the  Hon. 
E.  Henry  Lacombe,  who  followed  Judge  Andrews. 


62 

Soon  after  Mr.  Lacombe  assumed  office,  the  Mayor,  Hon.  Wil- 
liam R.  Grace,  appointed  Horace  E,  Deming,  Esq.,  to  make  a  thor- 
ough examination  of  the  office  of  the  Corporation  Counsel,  and 
report  as  to  conditions  existing,  and  to  make  such  recommendations 
as  seemed  proper  for  the  improvement  of  the  Law  Department. 
On  May  2,  1885,  Mr.  Deming  submitted  a  report  upon  the  Law  De- 
partment, and  some  of  his  recommendations  were  so  well  considered 
that  I  will  quote  from  the  report : 

"No  one  will  question  that  each  department  of  the  City 
government  should  be  so  organized  that  its  appropriate  work 
will  go  on  with  reasonable  efficiency  and  certainty  whoever  may 
be  its  accidental  chief.  *  *  *  There  is  already  enough  ac- 
crued and  current  business  not  only  to  justify,  but  in  my  opin- 
'  ion  to  compel  for  the  orderly,  economical  and  efficient  conduct 
of  the  City's  law  business,  the  establishment  of  bureaus  or 
divisions,  each  equipped  for  its  appropriate  work,  which  would 
include  in  the  case  of  each  Division  an  Assistant  as  the  respon- 
sible head,  with  a  proper  corps  of  subordinates.  The  advan- 
tages of  such  a  course  are  numerous  and  manifest. 

"It  is  clearly  impossible  for  the  Corporation  Counsel  to  have 
direct  personal  knowledge  of  the  details  of  the  immense  volume 
of  business  transacted  by  the  Department  of  which  he  is  the 
head.  The  larger  share  of  the  business  of  necessity  is  trans- 
acted by  his  subordinates.     *     *     * 

"Without  some  such  classification  as  is  above  recommended 
of  the  work  of  the  office  by  subject  matter  into  appropriate 
Bureaus  or  Divisions,  the  very  nature  and  extent  of  the  legal 
business,  which  demands  the  attention  of  the  Corporation  Coun- 
sel's office,  so  diffuses  the  responsibility  that  neither  credit 
nor  blame  can  be  properly  apportioned  among  the  numerous 
individuals  who  may  have  had  to  do  with  any  particular  piece 
of  business,  and  a  careful  and  critical  supervision  of  the  office 
is  impossible  to  the  Corporation  Counsel.  Given,  however, 
such  Assistants  and  system  as  is  hereby  recommended,  all  mis- 
cellaneous business  of   minor   importance   will   pass   naturally 


63 

into  the  proper  hands  without  need  for  specific  directions.  The 
more  important  questions  and  cases,  while  coming  to  the  Cor- 
poration Counsel  in  the  first  instance,  would  in  due  course  and 
without  friction,  find  their  way  also  to  the  appropriate  Division. 
*  *  *  Several  men  would  have  knowledge  at  any  given 
time  of  the  condition  of  any  given  piece  of  business,  and  the 
woiic  of  the  Division  would  go  on  without  great  delay  or  incon- 
venience, in  spite  of  the  vacations,  resignations  or  illness  of 
some  one  individual.  Each  Division  would  be  a  school  in  which 
several  men  were  learning  to  transact  its  business.  *  *  * 
Consultations  with  the  heads  of  the  Divisions  *  *  *  would 
keep  the  Corporation  Counsel  thoroughly  advised  of  the  condi- 
tion to  his  Department,  and  the  progress  of  its  work,  while  the 
subordinates  of  the  Division  in  turn  would  keep  the  Chief  of 
the  Division  thoroughl}'  advised  as  to  the  condition  of  the  de- 
partment of  work  intrusted  to  his  charge." 

Although  this  report  was  made  in  1885 — twenty-two  years  ago 
— long  before  the  creation  of  the  Greater  New  York,  and  at  a  time 
when  the  volume  of  business  was  just  about  one-fifth  of  what  it  is 
at  present,  it  expresses  with  entire  accuracy  the  greatest  need  of 
the  Department  down  to  the  time  of  my  administration — thorough 
organization.  • 

This  subject  of  reorganizing  the  main  ofiice  is  one  to  which 
each  of  my  predecessors  since  the  time  of  Judge  Lacombe  has  given 
considerable  attention.  Two  great  difficulties  have  always  been 
met  with — an  insufficient  number  of  Assistants  and  lack  of  office 
space.  The  latter  named  difficulty  has  now  disappeared,  but  the 
former  still  exists. 

Recognizing,  however,  that  the  necessity  for  proper  organiza- 
tion becomes  greater  each  year,  I  have  rearranged  the  staff  of  As- 
sistants allowed  to  the  main  office  and  have  created  a  number  of 
"Divisions,"  placing  a  Senior  Assistant  at  the  head  of  each  and 
dividing  the  remaining  Assistants,  Junior  Assistants  and  Law  Clerks 
among  the  various  Divisions. 


64 

The  following  shows  the  organization  and  personnel  of  the  De- 
partment as  it  exists  on  May  15,  1907: 

MAIN  OFFICE. 

THE    CORPORATION    COUNSEI.. 

WILLIAMB.    ELLISON. 

David  Ryan,  Secretary. 

In  the  general  administration  of  the  Department  business,  the 
Corporation  Counsel  is  assisted  by  a  Senior  Assistant  and  a  Junior 
Assistant.  The  Assistant  assigned  to  this  work  also  supervises  the 
preparation  of  opinions ;  he  has  a  general  designation  as  Acting  Cor- 
poration Counsel,  and  performs  the  duties  of  the  head  of  the 
department  in  the  absence  of  the  latter,  and  takes  charge  of  such 
other  matters  as  the  Corporation  Counsel  may  direct. 

One  of  the  most  important  duties  of  the  Corporation  Counsel 
is  to  render  advice  to  the  Mayor  and  heads  of  Departments.  The 
extent  of  this  part  of  the  office  business  is  indicated  to  some  extent 
by  the  fact  that  during  1906,  1,766  written  opinions  were  rendered. 
The  questions  presented  for  consideration  and  advice  are  apt  to 
become  the  subject  of  litigation.  It  has  been  most  gratifying  in 
the  past  to  observe  the  frequency  with  which  the  opinions  of  this 
Department  have  been  upheld  by  the  courts. 

I  have  not  made  a  special  division  of  this  opinion  work,  because 
I  find  that  it  is  necessary  to  use  the  most  experienced  men  in  all 
branches  and  divisions  of  the  office  to  examine  into  the  matters 
concerning  which  my  opinion  is  asked  and  to  draft  opinions  relating^ 
to  subjects  with  which  they  are  especially  familiar.  The  best  plan 
that  I  have  been  able  to  devise  is  to  have  each  request  for  advice 
assigned  to  the  Assistant  most  familiar  with  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration, who  prepares  the  draft  of  the  proposed  opinion. 

-In  the  work  of  general  administration  and  the  supervision  of 
opinions,  the  Corporation  Counsel  is  assisted  by: 
George  L.  Sterling,  Assistant. 
Charles  W.  Miller,  Junior  Assistant. 


65 

Division  of  Appeals. 
One  division  of  the  main  office  force  is  that  assigned  to  the 
argument  of  appeals  and  other  similar  matters.    A  Senior  Assistant 
is  in  charge  of  this  part  of  the  office  business,  and  several  Assistants 
are  detailed  to  aid  him. 

During  the  year  1906,  258  appeals  were  argued  or  submitted. 

The  office  is  very  successful  in  the  Appellate  Courts.  Care  is 
exercised  to  appeal  only  those  cases  where  there  is  involved  some 
important  principle  of  law  which  is  general  in  its  application,  or 
where  an  error  seems  clearly  to  have  been  committed  in  the  court 
below. 

In  the  appeal  work,  as  with  the  opinions,  it  is  not  advisable  to 
attempt  to  have  all  of  the  work  done  by  a  separate  force  of  assist- 
ants. It  is  frequently  necessary,  because  of  the  quantity  of  the 
work,  to  employ  assistants  in  other  divisions  to  prepare  the  briefs, 
and  it  is  often  desirable  to  have  an  appeal  argued  by  the  Assistant 
who  tried  the  case,  or  has  special  knowledge  of  the  subject. 

This  division  is  organized  as  follows: 

Theodore  Connoly,  Assistant  in  Charge;  Terence  Farley,  Thomas 
F.  Noonan  and  Royal  E.  T.  Riggs,  Assistants,  and  Alexander  L. 
Strouse,  Junior  Assistant. 

Division  for  Real  Estate  Matters  and  Condemnation  Proceedings 
Where  the  Land  is  Within  The  City  of  New  York. 

Another  division  of  the  office  conducts  condemnation  proceed- 
ings other  than  street  openings.  A  Senior  Assistant  is  in  charge 
of  this  division  and  he  and  the  Assistants  assigned  to  him  try  all 
proceedings  to  acquire  title  to  lands  within  the  City  needed  for 
dock  purposes,  bridge  approaches,  sites  for  public  schools,  libraries, 
fire  houses,  pumping  stations,  and  for  other  public  purposes. 

During  1906  this  division,  among  other  things,  closed  twenty- 
two  proceedings  by  confirmation  of  reports  in  which  the  awards 
amounted  to  $5,150,985.90. 


66 

The  persons  comprising  the  division  are  as  follows: 

Charles  D.  Olendorf,  Assistant  in  Charge;  Edwin  J.  Freedman, 

Joel  B.  Squier,  Oliver  Goldsmith  and  Francis  J.  Byrne,  Assistants, 

and  Henry  W.  Mayo,  Junior  Assistant. 

Division  for  Real  Estate  Matters  and  Condemnation  Proceedings 
Where  the  Land  is  Not  Within  the  City  of  New  York. 
The  counsel  who  attend  to  matters  relating  to  the  City  water 
supply  are  included  in  this  division.  The  proceedings  now  being 
commenced  to  acquire  title  for  the  new  "Catskill  Water  Supply" 
will  make  this  part  of  the  office  work  in  the  near  future  one  of  the 
most  important  divisions  of  the  office  force. 

A  report  as  to  the  present  condition  of  these  proceedings  is 
given  later: 

The  Counsel  now  employed  in  these  proceedings  are: 
Henry  T.   Dykman,  Isidor  J.   Beaudrias,  John  J.  Linson  and 
Henry  W.  Wheeler. 

Division  for  Tax  Matters. 

To  another  division  are  assigned  all  certiorari  proceedings  to 
review  assessments  for  taxation  on  real  and  personal  property  (of 
which  there  are  now  i,66o  pending),  franchise  tax  cases  and  water 
rate  proceedings. 

This  division  is  composed  of : 

George  S.  Coleman,  Assistant  in  Charge;  Andrew  T.  Campbell, 
Jr.,  William  H.  King  and  Curtis  A.  Peters,  Assistants. 

Division  for  Franchises. 

Another  division  has  charge  of  the  actions  now  being  tried  to 
test  the  constitutionality  of  the  eighty-cent  gas  bill,  and  all  other 
similar  cases  brought  by  gas,  electric  light  and  other  public  utility 
corporations. 

The  division  consists  of: 

William  P.  Burr,  Assistant  in  Charge;  Louis  Hahlo,  Alfred  W. 
Booraem  and  William  J.  Clarke,  Assistants. 


;  67 

Division  for  Legislation  and  Elections. 

It  has  always  been  necessary  to  detail  one  of  the  Assistants  to 
attend  at  Albany  during  the  sessions  of  the  Legislature  to  protect 
the  right  of  the  City.  Many  bills  are  introduced  at  every  session 
for  the  purpose  of  legalizing  unjust  claims  against  the  City,  and 
there  is  a  great  quantity  of  other  attempted  legislation  which  would 
be  prejudicial  to  the  City's  interests. 

The  Assistant  Corporation  Counsel  in  charge  of  this  work 
appears  before  the  various  committees  and  opposes  all  such  legis- 
lation. 

I  have  placed  one  of  my  Assistants,  Mr.  Arthur  C.  Butts,  in 
charge  of  this  Division.  At  other  times  during  the  year  Mr. 
Butts  is  engaged  in  election  cases,  and  other  matters. 

Division  for  Contract  Litigation. 

Another  division  consists  of  those  Assistants  who  are 
assigned  to  try  the  numerous  actions  on  contract  against  the 
City. 

The  following  persons  are  assigned  to  this  division : 
James  T.  Malone,  Assistant  in  Charge;  Thomas  F.  Byrne,  As- 
sistant; Francis  Martin,  Junior  Assistant,  and  Thomas  G.  Price, 
La7v  Clerk. 

Division  for  Actions  in  Tort. 
Another  division  contains  the  Assistants  who  try  personal 
injury  actions.  On  account  of  the  addition  of  six  additional 
Justices  to  the  trial  parts  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  New  York 
County,  it  has  been  necessary  recently  to  increase  the  force 
assigned  to  try  accident  cases,  and  the  division  now  contains : 

Cornelius  F.  Collins,  Assistant  in  Charge;  John  C.  Breckinridge, 
Josiah  A,  Stover,  Solon  Berrick,  J.  Gabriel  Britt,  Francis  X.  Mc- 
Quade  and  John  W.  Goff,  Jr.,  Assistants,  and  L  Townsend  Burden, 
Jr.,  and  Frank  E.  Smith,  Junior  Assistants. 


68 

Division  for  Affirmative  Actions. 

When  I  assumed  office  I  discovered  that  one  class  of  cases 
had  apparently  not  received  adequate  attention.  I  refer  to  the 
actions  in  which  The  City  of  New  York  is  plaintiflF.  I  therefore 
created  a  "Division  of  Affirmative  Actions"  to  handle  such  mat- 
ters exclusively. 

During  the  past  six  months  238  actions  have  been  brought 
against  the  New  York  City  Railway  Company  on  claims  for 
paving  between  its  tracks,  in  which  the  amount  claimed  is 
$1,403,688.48.  All  paving  claims  transmitted  to  this  Department 
up  to  January  i,  1907,  are  now  in  suit,  and  a  number  will  be 
tried  before  the  courts  adjourn  for  the  summer. 

Actions  have  also  been  commenced  against  the  New  York 
City  Railway  Company  for  car  license  fees  on  all  claims  down  to 
the  year  1906.  The  amount  claimed  in  these  suits  is  $408,990, 
and  some  of  the  cases  will  be  tried  during  May  or  June. 

No  part  of  the  office  business  is  more  important  than  the 
vigorous  prosecution  of  actions  in  which  the  City  is  plaintiff. 
In  order  that  these  cases  may  receive  proper  attention  I  have 
assigned  to  the  work  the  following : 

Frank  B.  Pierce,  Assistant  in  Charge;  and  Seymour  P.  Danzig, 
Law  Clerk. 

Division  for  the  Mayor's  Office. 
It  has  been  the  custom  for  many  years  to  assign  one  of  the 
Assistants   permanently  to   the  office   of   the    Mayor.      I    have 
designated  Mr.  Franklin  Chase  Hoyt  for  that  work. 

Division  for  Board  of  Education. 
The  number  of  cases  brought  against  the  Board  of  Education 
has  increased  to  such  an  extent  of  late  that,  at  the  request  of  the 
Board,  I  have  created  a  separate  division  to  attend  exclusively 
to  such  actions,  and  have  placed  in  charge  of  the  division  one 
of  my  assistants,  Mr.  Stephen  O'Brien,  and  have  assigned  Mr. 
Charles  Mclntyre,  Assistant,  to  aid  him. 


69 

Division  for  Civil  Service  Matters. 

The  number  of  actions  and  proceedings  involving  Civil  Service 
questions  has  made  it  necessary  to  make  a  separate  division 
of  such  cases,  and  I  have  placed  Mr.  William  B,  Crowell, 
Assistant,  in  charge  of  this  line  of  cases,  and  assigned  Henry  J. 
Shields,  Clerk,  to  assist  him. 

Division  for  Preparation  and  Approval  as  to  Form  of  Documents. 

During  the  year  1906  two  thousand  nine  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven  contracts  were  approved  as  to  form,  and  three  hundred 
and  fifty-three  other  contracts  were  revised  and  seven  hundred 
and  twenty  advertisements  for  bids  approved  as  to  form.  The 
number  of  bonds,  leases,  releases,  agreements  and  deeds  ap- 
proved as  to  form  brought  the  total  number  of  documents  con- 
sidered and  acted  upon  by  this  Department  up  to  a  total  of  four 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy-one. 

Mr.  John  L.  O'Brien,  an  Assistant,  has  been  assigned  to  take 
charge  of  this  division,  and  he  is  assisted  by  George  H.  Cowie,  Law 
Clerk. 

Division  for  Miscellaneous  Business. 

In  addition  to  these  separate  divisions,  it  is  also  necessary  to 
maintain  a  general  office  force  for  the  trial  of  actions  not  em- 
braced under  the  subjects  mentioned,  such  as  Civil  Service  cases, 
mandamus  and  certiorari  proceedings,  actions  for  damages  to 
property,  actions  for  wages  and  salary,  for  goods  sold  and  de- 
livered or  for  services  rendered,  suits  to  foreclose  liens  and  mort- 
gages, admiralty  suits,  injunction  suits,  taxpayers'  actions,  real 
property  actions,  and  all  other  cases  not  handled  by  the  other 
divisions.  There  is  a  great  quantity  of  miscellaneous  litigation 
which  it  is  not  possible  to  accurately  classify  for  which  a  large 
general  office  force  is  necessary.  Under  this  division  are  in- 
cluded also  those  Assistants  who  handle  the  litigation  in  the 
Boroughs  of  Queens,  Richmond  and  The  Bronx. 


70 

The  persons  comprised  in  this  division  are  as  follows: 
Edward  S.  Malone,  Richard  H.  Mitchell,  John  Widdecombe, 
Charles  A.  O'Neil,  John  F.  O'Brien,  James  P.  K^enan,  Arthur 
Sweeny,  George  P.  Nicholson,  Edmund  C.  Viemeister  and  Leonce 
Fuller,  Assistants;  William  H.  Doherty  and  Loring-  T.  Hildreth, 
Junior  Assistants. 

The  remainder  of  the  main  office  force  is  organized  as  follows : 
CHIEF  CLERK'S  OFFICE. 

CHIEF  CLERK. 

Andrew  T.  Campbell. 

ASSISTANT  CHIEF  CLERK. 

John  H.  Greener. 

Clerks. 
John  R.  Salmon,  William  H.  Kehoe.  Joseph  H.  Johnston,  John 
F.  Flynn,  Jeremiah  Maher,  David  F.  Dennehy,  George  F.  Brennan, 
Henry  A.  McCrimlisk,  John  W.  Brophy  and  John  A.  Leddy. 

Junior  Clerks. 
James  S.  Robinson,  Leo  P.  LeBlanc,  Victor  D.  Hosey,  Louis 
Pittarelli,  Frank  Oggeri,  James  Padian,  Thomas  F.  Ward,  Arthur 
H.  Kerns,  Lester  N.  Bennett,  William  Augenmeyer,  Albert  L.  Ward, 
John  J.  McGovern  and  Martin  J.  Devine. 

Office  Boys. 
Joseph   Maas,  Joseph  A.   McKeever,  Anthony  Horn,  Thomas 
J.  J.  Condon,  Frank  X.  Leonard,  John  A.  McGuane,  Charles  M. 
Pregenzer,   Thomas  A.   Finn,  Edward  J.   Spears  and  George  J. 
Joyce. 

Male  Stenographers  and  Typewriters. 

James  F.  Campbell  and  John  J.  Finnigan. 

-     Stenographers  and  Typewriters. 
Alice    Meany,    Adelaide,  B.   Mulcahy,    Margaret  E.   O'Reilly, 
Martha  J.  Neville,  Margaret  A.  Cooney,  Agnes  M.  Colleton,  Mary 


71 

H.  O'Connell,  Agnes  C.  Bog-gs,  Elizabeth  Vibbard,  Mary  F.  Man- 
gan,  Gertrude  A.  Walsh,  Kathryn  L.  Masterson,  Margaret  Mac- 
donald,  Margaret  A.  Leary,  Ella  L.  Garland,  Qara  M,  Zimmer- 
niann,  Mary  B.  Faulkner,  Margaret  C.  Kissinger,  Mary  A.  Lenz 
and  Anna  Albert. 

Typezvriting  Copyists. 
Mary  Doran  Byrnes,  Minnie  E.  Flood,  Catherine  H.  Duffy,  Jo- 
sephine  McGown.    Margaret   T.    Pyne,    Katherine    B.    Duval   and 
Nellie  V.  Oark. 

Librarian. 
James  M.  Valles. 

Examiners. 
William  H.  Lake,  Eugene  J.  Hughes,  Joseph  H.  Miles  and  James 
M.  Donohue. 

Messengers. 

William  J.  Hodge,  Thomas  E.  Kennedy  and  Joseph  G.  Fuller. 

Process  Server. 
Peter  Donnelly. 

Attendant  to  Corporation  Counsel. 
Anthony  McCarthy. 

Summary  of  Main  Office  Force. 
The  force  of  the  main  office  at  the  present  time  is  made  up  as 
follows : 

The  Corporation  Counsel,  his  Secretary  and  Attendant,  forty- 
three  Assistants,  seven  Junior  Assistants,  four  Law  Clerks,  one  Li- 
brarian, the  Chief  Qerk,  the  Assistant  Chief  Clerk,  ten  Qerks,  thir- 
teen Junior  Clerks,  ten  Office  Boys,  twenty-two  Stenographers, 
seven  Typewriting  Copyists,  four  Examiners,  three  Messengers 
and  one  Process  Server. 

Total  number  of  persons  in  the  main  office  is  one  hundred  and 
thirty. 


12 

Brooklyn  Office. 

The  branch  office  in  Brooklyn  handles  cases  brought  in  Kings 
County  and  other  matters  affecting  the  Borough  of  Brooklyn.  The 
great  number  of  actions  begun  in  the  County  of  Kings  would  per- 
haps make  it  necessary  to  always  maintain  a  branch  office  in  that 
county,  even  if  the  charter  had  not  made  it  mandator)-. 

There  are  certain  lines  of  work,  such  as  the  approval  of  con- 
tracts, leases  and  other  papers,  tax  certiorari  cases  and  the  render- 
ing of  opinions,- which  should  manifestly  be  handled  in  one  place 
only,  and  such  matters  are  attended  to  by  the  main  office.  Most 
of  the  other  cases  brought  in  Kings  County  are  handled  by  the 
assistants  in  Brooklyn. 

The  office  force  in  the  Brooklyn  office  at  the  present  time  is  as 
follows : 

ASSISTANT  CORPORATION   COUNSEL  IN  CHARGE. 

James  D.  Bell. 

Assistants. 
Richard  B.  Greenwood,  Jr.   Patrick  E.  Callahan,  Edward  Lazan- 
sky,  Daniel  D.  Whitney,  Jr.,  James  W.  Covert,  Jerome  W.  Coombs, 
James  T.  O'Neill  and  Martin  Flanagan. 

Junior  Assistants. 
Edward  H.  Wilson,  David  Joyce,  Joseph  H.   Gardiner,  Jr., 
and  Philip  N.  Harrison. 

Laiv  Clerks. 
Charles  J.  Druhan,  Charles  R.  Hartmann  and  John  J.  Kean. 

Chief  Clerk. 
Samuel  K.  Probasco. 

Junior  Clerks. 
Charles  F.  Kahlert,  Morris  Titoonek  and  Robert  P.  S.  Han- 
ley. 


73 

Stenographers  and  Typewriters. 

Catherine   F.   Farrell,    Rose   Donald,    Elizabeth   F.    Barrett, 
Frances  L.  Berry  and  Mary  C.  Farrell. 

Typeuriting  Copyist. 
Agnes  M.  Dorman. 

Telephone  Sivitchboard  Operator. 
Frances  Young. 

Process  Server. 
Thomas  A,  Murphy. 

*  Attendant  to  First  Assistant. 

Henry  Ritter. 
Entire  force,  twenty-nine  persons. 

Branch  Offices  in  Other  Boroughs. 

Up  to  the  close  of  1906  separate  branch  offices  were  main- 
tained in  the  Boroughs  of  Queens,  Richmond  and  The  Bronx.  In 
the  Hall  of  Records,  however,  it  was  found  that  there  would  be 
sufficient  room  to  bring  into  the  main  office  the  assistants  and 
subordinates  in  the  three  branch  offices  referred  to.  Although 
there  were  some  advantages  in  having  separate  offices  in  the  differ- 
ent boroughs,  it  has  been  found  that  on  the  whole  better  results 
are  obtained  and  there  is  an  economy  of  work  in  having  the 
department  centralized  as  far  as  practicable.  One  advantage  in 
having  most  of  the  force  under  one  roof  is  the  avoidance  of 
assistants  duplicating  each  other's  work.  Another  advantage  is 
the  fact  that  the  assistants,  by  being  near  each  other,  may  be 
mutually  helpful.  But  the  great  benefit  of  centralization  is  that 
it  makes  it  possible  for  the  head  of  the  department  to  give  better 
general  direction  to  the  department  business  and  makes  it  possi- 
ble to  carry  out  broad  general  plans  and  policies  in  the  handling 
of  the  City's  law  business. 


74 

In  the  future  therefore  the  general  offices  (not  including  the 
bureaus  which  will  be  spoken  of  hereafter)  will  consist  of  the  main 
office  in  the  Hall  of  Records,  Manhattan,  and  the  branch  office  in 
the  Borough  of  Brooklyn. 

BUREAU  OF  STREET  OPENINGS. 

This  bureau  is  created  by  the  Charter,  and  conducts,  as  the  name 
implies,  all  proceedings  to  acquire  title  to  lands  for  streets,  parks 
and  other  public  purposes. 

The  extent  of  the  business  assigned  to  the  bureau  may  be  indi- 
cated by  the  following  statistics,  taken  from  the  report  of  the 
bureau  for  the  year  1906. 

During  the  year  419  reports  of  Commissioners  of  Estimate  and 
Assessment  were  under  consideration.  Of  these  96  were  confirmed 
and  II  others  have  been  moved  for  confirmation.  In  the  pro- 
ceedings where  reports  were  confirmed  title  was  acquired  to  over 
forty-eight  miles  of  new  streets.  The  awards  in  these  proceedings 
amounted  to  $12,269,897.20,  and  the  assessments  to  $6,034,989.78. 

In  the  II  proceedings  moved  for  confirmation  the  awards 
amount  to  $626,706.84,  and  the  assessments  to  $1,187,409.03.  The 
length  of  streets  to  be  acquired  is  approximately  seven  and  three- 
tenths  miles. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  312  other  proceedings  received  atten- 
tion during  the  year,  the  status  of  which  is  as  follows: 

Final  reports  signed 13 

Final  instructions  received 61 

Hearing  or  considering  objections. 34 

Preliminary  abstracts  in  course  of  preparation 44 

Awaiting  final  maps '  6 

Considering  awards  13 

Taking  testimony  73 

Awaiting  damage  maps 68 


75 

Other  items  from  the  annual  report  are  as  follows: 

Opinions  and  letters  drafted 2,237 

Appeals  argued   26 

Commissioners  appointed  288 

Because  of  the  large  number  of  proceedings  to  open  streets  in 
Kings  and  Queens  counties,  branch  offices  of  the  Bureau  of  Street 
Openings  have  been  opened  in  the  boroughs  of  Brooklyn  and 
Queens.  It  will  probably  be  necessary  in  the  near  future  to  greatly 
add  to  the  force  in  these  branch  offices  to  cope  with  the  increasing 
volume  of  business.  To  fail  to  promptly  open  new  streets  in  these 
boroughs  would  greatly  retard  the  improvement  of  much  unde- 
veloped property  in  the  outlying  parts  of  the  City. 

The  office  force  of  the  bureau  is  as  follows: 

ASSISTANT  CORPORATION  COUNSEL  IN   CHARGE. 

John  p.  Dunn. 

Assistants. 
Thomas  C.  Blake,  Thomas  F.  Quigley,  L.  Howell  LaMotte, 
William    R.   Keese,  William    A.    Mathis,   Edward    F.   Reynolds, 
George  E.  Draper,  David  Tomlinson,  Frederick  W.   Gahrmann, 
James  R.  Fitzgerald,  John  J.  Kearney  and  Michael  F.  Conry. 

Junior  Assistants. 
Howard  L.  Campion,  Jacinto  Costa,  John  P.  Smith,  Millard  F. 
Kuh,  Samuel  J.  Benson  and  Arthur  J.  Stern. 

Chief  Clerk. 

Michael  J.  Morrison. 

Bookkeeper. 

Julius  Hahn. 

Clerks. 
John    J.    Mulhall,    Michael    J.    Curley,    Charles    R.    Rocksch, 
Thomas  P.  White,  Thomas  J.  Kelly,  John  A.  Kane,  Michael  J. 
Sweeny,  Joseph  V.  Carr,  John  J.  Walsh,  Luis  G.  Segura,  James 
Egan,  Charles  A.  Duffy  and  Nathan  Goldstein. 


76 

Junior  Clerks. 
Frank  C.  Flynn,  Charles  E.  Lamb,  Churchill  Hayden,  John  J. 
McNeill,  Charles  P.  Kramer  and  William  I.  Hurley. 

Office  Boys. 
Edward  F.  Fagan  and  Harry  Coorman. 

Messengers. 

Patrick  J.  Murty,  Thomas  Reddy,  John  J.  Laracy  and  John  W. 
Thompson. 

Male  Stenographer  and  Typewriter. 
Malcom  Kerr. 

Stenographers  and  Typewriters. 
Ottilie  S.  Voorhis,  Sarah  E.  A.  Curran,  May  A.  Byrne,  Tessie 
Glennon  and  Anne  V,  McKenna. 

Typewriting  Copyists. 

Mary    M.    Glendenning,    Mary    G.    Branagan    and    Elizabeth 
Bassett. 

Telephone  Switchboard   Operator. 

Mary  M.  Kehoe. 

Chief  Computer  of  Assessments. 
Owen  D.  Healy. 

Computers  of  Assessments. 
William  B.  R.  Faber,  William  E.  Wild,  Edward  A.  Quirk,  James 
H,  Wall,  J.  Monroe  Boylston,  Frank  J,  Flynn,  Edward  A.  Reilly, 
Patrick  S.  MacDwyer,  Benjamin  F.  England,  Daniel  E.  Bowling, 
Jr.,  Augustine  M.  O'Neill,  John  A.  Brophy,  John  D.  Lyons  and 
Charles  R.  Ramsdell. 

Topographical  Draughtsmen. 
Mortimer  A.  Smith,  George  Grote,  Charles  E.  Qarke,  Marcel 
deGrandmont,  David  R.  Briggs,  Jr.,  Charles  H.  Stoutenburgh  and 
Benjamin  Reich. 

Total  force,  seventy-nine  persons. 


"7 

The  Bureau  of  Penalties. 

As  already  stated,  this  Bureau  was  created  by  the  Charter  of  the 
Greater  New  York  to  take  the  place  of  the  former  office  of  the  Cor- 
poration Attorney. 

The  Bureau  conducts  all  actions  and  proceedings  to  enforce 
corporation  ordinances,  all  penalty  proceedings  instituted  by  the 
Charity,  Fire  and  Health  Departments  and  all  delinquent  juror 
cases. 

The  following  items  from  the  annual  report  of  the  Bureau  for 
1906  will  show  the  variety  of  cases  handled  and  the  volume  of 
business : 

Violations  of  Corporation  Ordinances, 

Number  of  complaints  received  and  acted  upon 11,817 

Number  of  actions  commenced 8,611 

Appeals  in  such  actions 5 

Bastardy  Proceedings. 

Complaints  received  and  acted  upon 329 

Number  of  convictions 155 

Actions  on  bastardy  bonds _    33 

Appeals    from  convictions .: 8 

Abandonment  Proceedings. 

Complaints  received  and  acted  upon 573 

Convictions    no 

Appeals  from  convictions 36 

Actions  on  bonds  in  such  cases 223 

Proceedings  to  Compel  Support  of  Poor  Relations. 

Complaints  received  and  acted  upon 30 

Motions  to  punish  for  contempt 4 


78 

Equity  Suits  to  Compel  Removal  of  Encroachments  on  Side- 
walks, etc. 

Number  of  actions  handled 6 

Appeals  in   such  cases 4 

Fire  Department  Cases. 

"Soft  coal"  proceedings 7 

Chimney  fire  complaints 86 

Proceedings  against  theatres,  hotels,  lodging  houses,  etc., 

for  failure  to  comply  with  law 505 

Complaints  for  obstructing  fire  hydrants 9 

Complaints  against  dangerous  chimneys 11 

Complaints  against  open  hoistways 15 

Health  Department  Cases. 

L^roceedings  commenced   in    Manhattan 6,845 

Proceedings  commenced  in  The  Bronx i  ,037 

Proceedings  commenced  in  Brooklyn 3478 

Proceedings  commenced  in  Queens 264 

Proceedings  commenced  in  Riclimond 265 

Total 11,889 

Delinquent  Juror  Cases. 

Number  of  proceedings 1,202 

Collections  by  the  Bureau  during  the  year $39,445  63 


A  number  of  other  miscellaneous  proceedings  were  commenced 
drniug  the  year  not  embraced  in  the  foregoing  lists.  The  entire 
number  of  proceedings  handled  by  the  Bureau  of  Penalties  during 
the  year  1906  was  over  30,000. 

The  persons  employed  in  the  Bureau  are  as  follows: 


79 

ASSISTANT  CORPORATION   COUNSEL  IN   CHARGE. 

Herman  Stiefel. 

Assistants. 
Harford   Pinckney  Walker,   Michael  J.   Kelly,  James  Dickson 
Carr  and  Joseph  G.  Mathews. 

Junior  Assistant. 
William  S.  Millard. 

Law  Clerks. 
Timothy  J.  Murphy  and  James  D.  O'SuUivan. 

Clerks. 
James  J.  McGrath  and  William  E.  Fay. 

Junior  Clerks. 
Lawrence  P.  Connolly,    William  J.  Leonard    and    George  A. 

Linton. 

Office  Boy. 

William  A.  Pagan. 

Stenographers  and  Typewriters. 
Sadie  Seibert,  Lillian  C.  Goldstein  and  Lorette  V.  Higgins. 

Process  Servers. 
Patrick  H.  Curran,  William  Looney,  Philip  Straub,  Frank  J. 
Steinbacher  and  Henry  Lemken. 

A  total  force  of  twenty-one  persons. 

The  Bureau  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes. 

The  Personal  Tax  Law  of  this  State  has  been  the  subject 
of  much  criticism  during  recent  years,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that 
in  the  attempt  to  enforce  it  much  injustice  is  done.  The  persons 
and  corporations  whom  the  law  is  designed  to  reach  almost  es- 
cape taxation  altogether,  and  the  extra  burden  of  a  personal  tax 
falls  on  a  comparatively  small  number  of  business  concerns  and 


8o 

householders  who  are  too  conscientious  to  avail  themselves  of 
the  many  opportunities  to  evade  the  tax. 

Each  year  a  long  list  of  assessments  for  personal  taxes  is 
prepared,  founded  mostly  on  "the  mere  surmises  of  the  Deputy 
Assessors.  Before  the  tax  books  are  closed  most  of  the  assess- 
ments that  could  be  collected  are  "sworn  off"  before  the  Tax 
Commissioners  and  when  the  books  are  closed  the  list  consists 
mainly  of  assessments  which  are  uncollectible. 

After  the  expiration  of  the  time  allowed  for  the  payment  of 
these  taxes  the  list  of  arrears  is  sent  to  the  Marshal  for  the 
Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes,  who  has  power  to  make 
a  levy  on  the  personal  property  taxed  and  to  take  other  summary 
proceedings  for  the  collection  of  the  arrears.  When  the  Marshal 
has  exhausted  the  list  it  is  sent  to  this  department  and  the  Bureau 
for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes  makes  a  final 
attempt  to  collect  the  tax. 

When  the  list  reaches  the  Law  Department  it  contains  the 
names  of  thousands  of  persons  who  have  paid  no  attention  to  the 
numerous  notices  sent  to  them  because  they  have  no  property, 
real  or  personal,  that  could  be  levied  upon  under  an  execution. 
The  names  of  many  non-resident  corporations,  non-resident  in- 
dividuals and  other  persons  not  properly  assessed  also  appear 
on  the  lists  and  it  is  really  remarkable  that  this  department  is 
able  to  collect  any  considerable  amount  of  money  by  bringing 
actions  against  the  delinquents. 

During  the  year  1906  the  collections  by  the  Bureau  were  as 
follows : 

Taxes  and  interest : $87,815  78 

Costs  collected 15.287  J-] 


Total $103,103  55 


During  the  year  about  30,000  notices  were  mailed  to  de- 
linquent taxpayers.  Six  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty 
actions  were  begun.     Eight  hundred  and  thirty-two  judgments 


8l 

were  entered.    One  thousand  nine  hundred  and  eighty-one  suits 
were  settled  by  payment. 

During  the  month  of  April,  1907,  the  entire  office  force  of  the 
Bureau  was  completely  reorganized  and  it  is  now  as  follows: 

ASSISTANT  CORPORATION   COUNSEL   IN    CHARGE. 

George  O'Reilly. 

Junior  Assistant. 
Loyal  Leale. 

Clerks. 
Frank  E.  Johnson,  Jr.,  and  Edward  Maas. 

Junior  Clerks. 
Augustine    H.    Matthews,    Bernard    L.    Carberry,    Frank    J. 
Daly,  William  A.  Thompson,  Joseph  Taylor  and  John  A.  Quinn. 

Office  Boy. 
Max  Isaacs. 

Stenographers  and  Typewriters. 
Mary  E.  Parlati,  Eleanor  E.  McEvoy,  Cora  Rankin,  Agnes 
Fleming  and  Anna  G.  Feeney. 

Typezvriting  Copyists. 
Gertrude    S.    Kramer,    Anna    L.    Martin,    M.    L.    Charlotte 
Mechlin,  Mabel  Hamilton,  Anna  G.  Stapleton. 

Alcssenger. 
Peter  S.  Prunty. 

Process  Servers. 
Michael  F.  Murphy  and  twenty-two  Special  Process  Servers, 
paid  at  the  rate  of  $1.15  for  each  process  actually  served. 

The  whole  force  numbers  forty-five. 


82 

The  Tenement  House  and  Building  Bureau  Branch  Office. 

A  separate  office  or  Bureau  is  also  maintained  to  take  charge 
of  proceedings  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  Tenement  House 
Law  and  matters  connected  with  the  Building  Department. 
Probably  nothing  of  late  years  has  contributed  more  to  the 
good  health  and  good  morals  of  a  large  part  of  the  population 
of  this  City  than  the  new  Tenement  House  and  Building  Laws. 
It  is  necessary,  however,  that  these  laws  be  most  rigidly  en- 
forced, and  this  duty  devolves  to  a  considerable  extent  on  the 
branch  office  of  this  Department. 

The  Tenement  House  Law  violations  received  and  acted  upon 
during  the  year  1906  numbered  11,033;  2,283  actions  were 
terminated  during  the  year,  and  there  were  7,484  still  pending  at 
the  close  of  the  year. 

Ninety-two  judgments  were  entered  during  the  year. 

Sixteen  criminal  proceedings  were  instituted. 

Six  hundred  proceedings  were  commenced  against  premises 
unfit  for  human  habitation. 

Five  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-nine  notices  of  lis 
pendens  were  filed. 

One  hundred  and  eighty-one  special  actions  were  begun  for 
unlawful  occupation  of  tenement  houses. 

The  sum  of  $5,324.14  was  collected  during  the  year. 

In  matters  relating  to  the  Building  Department  the  record  for 
the  year  was  as  follows: 

Complaints  received  ^>77^ 

Actions  terminated  i>655 

Actions  pending  at  close  of  year 117 

Judgments  entered   36 

Precepts  in  unsafe  building  cases 108 

Lis  pendens  filed 649 

Money  collected    $4*804  33 


83 

The  persons  assigned  to  the  Bureau  are  as  follows : 

ASSISTANT  CORPORATION  COUNSEL   IN   CHARGE. 

John  p.  O'Brien. 

Assistants. 
Samuel  J.  Parmenter,  William  T.  Kennedy  and  Francis  E.  V.  Dunn. 

Junior  Assistants. 
Henry  S.  Johnston,  Louis  Gans  and  Addison  B.  Scoville. 

Clerk. 
Gerald  G.  P.  Jackson. 

Junior  Clerks. 
Benedict  A.  P.  Smith,  Max  Oppenheimer,  Harry  HertzoflF  and 
William  M.  Sullivan. 

Office  Boys. 
David  Zucker,  Thomas  F.  McDonald,  William  J.  Daly,  Jr.,  and 
Edward  A.  Hosey. 

Stenographers  and   Typewriters. 
Anna  E,  Lamb,  Rebecca  Hanau  and  Jennie  G.  Murray. 

Typewriting  Copyists. 
Loretto  G.  Lyman,  Mary  Liebergall  and  Mary  F.  Lane. 

Process  Servers. 
Leonard  Zimmerman  and  eight  Special  Process  Servers,  paid  at 
the  rate  of  $1.15  for  each  process  actually  served. 
The  entire  force  of  the  bureau  is  thirty-six  persons. 

Summary: 
The  number  of  employees  in  the  entire  Law  Department  at  the 
present  time  is,  therefore : 

Main  Office   130 

Brooklyn  Office 29 

Bureau  of  Street  Openings 79 


94 

Bureau  of  Penalties 21 

Bureau  for  the  Collection  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes. ...  45 

Tenement  House  Bureau  36 

Total 340 


Matters  Relating  to  the  Water  Supply. 
Proceedings  to  Condemn  Land  for  the  Water  Supply. 

In  re  Cornell  Dam,  Eighth  Supplemental  Proceeding. 
During  the  past  year  the  proceedings  pending  before  the  Com- 
missioners of  Appraisal  herein  have  been  continued  and  the  eleventh 
and  twelfth  separate  reports  of  the  Commission  have  been  made 
and  confirmed.  These  reports  embraced  twenty-seven  parcels  and 
one  separate  claim,  for  which  awards  amounting  to  $119,444.15 
were  made. 

Originating  in  this  proceeding,  but  subsequently  sent  before 
another  Commission,  was  parcel  No.  486,  in  which  an  additional 
award  of  $2,600  has-  been  made  for  one  parcel. 

In  re  Cornell  Dam,  Ninth  Supplemental  Proceeding. 
The  report  of  the  Commission  has  been  made  and  confirmed 
during  the  year  1906.     The  report  embraced  five  parcels  and  the 
awards  amounted  to  $19,068. 

In  re  Byram  Pond  and  Bear  Gutter  Creek  (Parcels  61  and  62). 
The  report  in  this  proceeding  has  been  made  during  the  present 
year,  and  the  award  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $37,154.55. 

Carmel  or  Lake  Gleneida  Proceeding. 
The  trial  of  this  proceeding  was  continued  and  concluded,  and 
a  report  embracing  two  parcels  and  ten  separate  claims  made  by 
the  Commission,  the  awards  for  which  amounted  to  $37,221. 

Croton  Falls  Reservoir  (K). 
This  proceeding  has  been  commenced  by  the  appointment  of  a 
Commission ;  testimony   upon   twelve  parcels   has  been   completed 
on  both  sides. 


85 

Croton  Falls  Rcscn'oir  {K),  First  Supplemental  Proceeding. 
A  Commission  has  been  appointed  herein  and  testimony  is  now 
being  taken  on  behalf  of  the  claimants. 

Cross  Riivr  Reservoir  (Additional  Lands  and  Highways) . 
In  the  construction  of  Cross  River  Dam  the  old  roads  will  be 
flooded  and  new  highways  will  have  to  be  substituted.  The  new 
routes  have  been  finally  approved  by  the  Court;  Commissioners 
have  been  appointed  before  whom  the  important  question  as  to 
whether  the  new  routes  should  be  constructed  by  the  City  or  by 
the  towns  and  paid  for  by  the  City  will  be  litigated  unless  an 
amicable  arrangement  can  be  made  between  the  towns  and  the 
City.  Testimony  is  now  being  taken  before  said  Commission  and 
roads  are  being  constructed  under  a  stipulation. 

Cross  River  Dam  and  Reservoir  (Division  i). 
Four  separate  reports  have  been  made  by  the  Commission  ir 
this  proceeding  during  the  year  1906.  embracing  twenty  parcels  of 
land,  for  which  the  awards  have  amounted  to  $164,455. 

Cross  River  Dam  and  Reservoir  (Second  Division). 
Three  separate  reports  have  been  made  by  this  Commission, 
embracing  twenty-one  parcels  of  land,  for  which  the  awards  made 
were  $45,875- 

Byram  River  Diversion. 

In  the  matter  of  making  settlements  with  the  owners  of  lands 
having  frontage  on  Byram  river,  one  claim  is  awaiting  warrant 
from  the  Comptroller,  two  claims  are  awaiting  adjustment  of  dis- 
pute as  to  number  of  feet  frontage,  and  seven  claimants  have 
not  signed  agreement  with  Comptroller. 

McUter  of  Taxation  of  City  Lands,  Westchester  and  Putnam 

Counties. 
Since  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  making  the  struc- 
tures of  the  City  assessable  for  taxation,  certiorari  proceedings  have 
been  instituted   for  the  purpose  of  reviewing  the  question  of  in- 
equality and  overvaluation  in  1905  and  1906,  and  have  been  referred 


86 

to  a  Referee,  who  is  now  taking  testimony  in  the  matter.  In  the 
certiorari  proceedings  for  1904,  the  writs  were  quashed ;  an  appeal 
was  taken  to  the  Appellate  Division,  which  appeal  has  been  heard, 
and  decided  in  favor  of  the  City. 

Injunction  Suits. 
In  connection  with  the  certiorari  proceedings,  six  suits  were 
brought  to  enjoin  the'  Supervisors  in  various  towns  of  the  county 
from  selling  the  land  of  the  City  for  unpaid  taxes  of  1902.  These 
suits  are  at  issue,  but  have  not  been  tried.  A  preliminary  injunction 
has  been  granted,  and  the  City  is  not  desirous  of  moving  unless 
compelled  to,  and  will  probably  withdraw  these  suits  as  soon  as  the 
certiorari  proceedings  are  determined. 

Mt.  Kisco  Proceeding. 
Efforts  have  been  made  from  time  to  time  on  the  part  of  the 
Board  of  Health  of  The  City  of  New  York  to  have  proceedings 
taken  to  prevent  the  pollution  of  the  City's  water  supply  at  Mt. 
Kisco,  and  an  agreement  has  been  suggested  between  the  Depart- 
ment of  Water  vSupply,  Gas  and  Electricity  and  the  Village  of  Mt. 
Kisco,  whereby  the  sewage  from  said  village  will  be  satisfactorily 
disposed  of.  A  bill  will  be  introduced  into  the  Legislature  with  this 
object  in  view.  The  condemnation  of  certain  low  swamp  lands  by 
The  City  of  New  York  may  be  necessary. 

New  Catskill  Aqueduct  Proceeding. 
In  this  large  and  important  undertaking  preliminary  steps  have 
been  taken,  such  as  the  filing  of  maps  and  the  advertising  of  appli- 
cations for  the  appointment  of  Commissioners  in  various  sections 
of  the  work.  None  of  these  applications  were  heard  in  the  year 
1906,  but  it  is  exepcted  that  during  1907  several  of  the  applications 
will  be  heard  and  granted  and  condemnation  proceedings  immedi- 
ately pressed  by  the  City. 


«7 

REPORT  FOR  1906. 

Recapitulation  of  Report  of  General  Offices. 

In  outlining  the  organization  of  the  department  and  describing 
the  business  conducted  by  the  Bureaus  I  have  given  a  short  sum- 
mary of  the  work  done  by  each  Bureau  during  1906.  It  now  re- 
mains for  me  to  give  a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  year's  work  in  the 
main  office  and  Brooklyn  office.  The  eight  schedules  forming  the 
detailed  report  of  these,  the  general  offices,  show  the  following 
results  for  the  year  1906: 

SCHEDULE  I. 

Actions  and  Speci.\l  Proceedings  Pending  at  the  Close  of 

THE  Year. 
Actions  against  the  City — 

"Prevailing  rate  of  wages"  actions 5,624 

"Suspension"  actions 4,217 

Other  actions  by  City  employees  for  salary  or  wages  2,720 

All  other  actions  on  contract I,i33 

Actions  on  tort 5,612 

Equity  suits 778 

Actions  in  which  the  summons  only  has  been  served.  988 

Actions  in  which  The  City  of  New  York  is  plaintiff 342 

Tax  certiorari  piv^.  ;edings 1,660 

Other  certiorari  proceedings 168 

Mandamus  proceedings 430 

Condemnation  proceedings  (other  than  street  openings).  171 

Assessment  proceedings 663 

"Change  of  grade"  claims 901 

Miscellaneous  proceedings 33 

Total 25^0 


88 

SCHEDULE  2. 

Number  of  Actions  and  Proceedings  Begun  and  Terminated 

During  the  Year, 

Actions  and  Proceedings  Begun  During  the  Year. 

Actions  against  the  City — 

"Prevailing  rate  of  wages"  actions 134 

"Suspension"  actions   3 

Other  actions  by  City  employees  for  wages  or  salary  40 

All  other  actions  on  contract 113 

Actions  on  tort 559 

Equity  suits 279 

Actions  in  which  the  summons  only  has  been  served.  364 

Actions  in  which  The  City  of  New  York  is  plaintiff 208 

Tax  certiorari  proceedings 321 

Other  certiorari  proceedings 58 

Mandamus  proceedings 447 

Condemnation  proceedings  (other  than  street  openings) .  .  54 

Assessment  proceedings 2 

Miscellaneous  proceedings 336 

Total ; 2,918 


Number  of  Actions  and  Proceedings  Terminated  During  the  Year. 

Actions  against  the  City — 

Actions  by  City  employees  for  salary  or  wages 75 

All  other  actions  on  contract 105 

Actions  on  tort 501 

Equity  suits 248 

Actions  in  which  the  summons  only  was  served 85 

"Excise  rebate"  cases 46 

Actions  in  which  The  City  of  New  York  is  plaintiff 56 

Proceedings  brought  by  the  Receiver  of  Taxes 28 

Tax  certiorari  proceedings 115 

Other  certiorari  proceedings 85 


^ 


89 

Mandamus  proceedings Z'^3 

Condemnation  proceedings  (other  than  street  openings) ...  i8 

Assessment  proceedings 3 

Miscellaneous  proceedings 3^5 


Total 2,ooi 


SCHEDULE   3. 

Court  Work  During  the  Year. 

Appeals  Argued,   Actions   Tried,   Hearings   Before   Referees   and 
Commissioners  and  Motions  Argued. 

Number  of  actions  tried  in  courts  other  than  Municipal 

Courts 298 

Number  of  actions  tried  in  Municipal  Courts 91 

Number  of  appeals  argued  or  submitted  at  Appellate  Term  1 1 
Number  of  appeals  argued  or  submitted  at  Appellate  Di- 
vision     193 

Number  of  appeals  argued  or  submitted  at  the  Court  of 

Appeals    51 

Number  of  appeals  argued  at  the  United  States  Supreme 

Court   2 

Number  of  appeals  argued  in  United  States  Circuit  Court 

of  Appeals l 

Number  of  actions  and  proceedings  tried  before  referee ...  46 

Number  of  sessions  before  referees 292 

Number  of  condemnation  proceedings  on  trial 7^ 

Number  of  hearings  before  Commissioners  at  which  testi- 
mony was  taken 954 

Number  of  motions  argued 934 

Number  of  complaints  dismissed  on  c^U  of  calendar 29 


90 

Disposition. 

The  actions  tried  and  appeals  argued  were  disposed  of  as  fol- 
lows: 
Number  of  actual  trials  in  courts  other  than  Municipal 

Courts 298 

Decisions  in  favor  of  the  City 99 

Decisions  against  the  City 113 

Decisions   which   were   partly   favorable   and 

partly  unfavorable 12 

Trials    in    which    the    jury    disagreed    or    a 

juror  was  withdrawn 10 

Trials  in  which  the  City  was  only  indirectly 

interested 34 

Cases  tried  in  which  a  reference  was  ordered.  i 

Trials  where  a  judgment  was  consented  to 1 

Cases  not  yet  decided 7 

298 

Number  of  actual  trial*  in  Municipal  Courts 91 

Decisions  in  favor  of  the  City 41 

Decisions  against  the  City 43 

Trials  in  which  the  jury  disagreed i 

Cases  not  yet  decided 6 

91 

Number  of  appeals   argued  or  submitted    at    Appellate 

Division  • 193 

Decisions  in  favor  of  the  City 130 

Decisions  against  the  City , 49 

Decisions  partly  favorable  and  partly  unfav- 
orable    ID 

Appeals  where  City's  interest  was  indirect. ...  i 

Cases  not  yet  decided 3 

193 


91 

Number  of  appeals  argued   or   submitted    at    Appellate 

Term 1 1 

Decisions  in  favor  of  the  City 5 

Decisions  against  the  City 4 

Decision  partly  favorable  and  partly  unfavor- 
able      I 

Appeal  where  City  was  not  directly  interested .  i 

II 


Number  of  appeals  argued  or  submitted  at  the  Court  of 

Appeals    51 

Decisions  in  favor  of  the  City 34 

Decisions  against  the  City 17  . 

51 


One  of  the  appeals  argued  in  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
was  decided  in  favor  of  the  City,  and  in  the  others  a  reargument 
was  ordered. 

The  appeal  argued  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals 
was  decided  against  the  City. 


SCHEDULE  4. 
Judgments,  Orders  and  Decrees  Entered  During  the  Year, 

Number  of  orders  and  decrees  entered $ 1,244 

Number  of  judgments  entered  against  the  City 394 

Number  of  judgments  entered  in  favor  of  the  City 200 

Amount  of  judgments  entered  against  the  City $506,334  09 

Amount  of  judgments  entered  in  favor  of  the  City. . . .        76,210  21 


92 

SCHEDULE  5. 
Payments  Made  from  EIach  Appropriation  During  the  Year. 
"Supplies    and    Contingencies,     Including     De- 
ficiencies" (original  appropriation) $100,000  00 

Transfer  from  "Contingent  Counsel  Fees".  $24,250  00 
Transfer  from  "Salaries  of  Assistants,  etc."    24.706  08 

48,956  08 

Total $148,956  08 

Amount  disbursed $1 10,241  76 

Balance   unexpended    38,714  32 

Total $148,956  08 

"Contingent  Counsel  Fees"  (original  appropria- 
tion)       $25,000  00 

/.mount  disbursed $75°  00 

Transfer   to   "Supplies   and   Contingen- 
cies"           24,250  00 

— $25,000  00 

"Fees  of  Experts  and  Other  Disbursements  in 
Tax  Certiorari  Proceedings"  (original  appro- 
priation)          $40,000  00 

Amount  disbursed $14,770  35 

Balance  unexpended 25.229  65 

$40,000  GO 


93 

"Investigation  of  City's  Claims  to  Lands  Under 

Water  in  Jamaica  Bay"  (original  appropriation)      $10,000  00 


Amount  disbursed $i»447  50 

Balance  unexpended   8,552  50 

$10,000  00 

Salaries  (original  appropriation) $460,000  00 

Transfer  to  "Supplies  and  Contingencies" 24,706  08 

Net  appropriation $435»293  92 

Amount  disbursed $435,293  92 

Total  $435,293  92 


SCHEDULE   6. 

Moneys  Received  and  Returned  by  the  Corporation  Counsel 
During  the  Year. 

Collections  by  Main  Office — 

Amount  collected,  exclusive  of  costs $160,379  10 

Amount  of  costs  collected I0.553  77 

Total  for  Main  Office $170,932  87 

Collections  by  Bureau  of  Arrears  of  Personal  Taxes. .  103,103  55 

Collections  by  Bureau  of  Penalties 39.445  63 

Collections  by  Bureau  of  Buildings 4,804  33 

Collections  by  Tenement  House  Branch  Office 5.324  14 

Total  collections  of  the  Law  Department  $323,610  52 


94 

SCHEDULE  7. 
Contracts,  etc.,  Approved  During  the  Year, 

Number  of  contracts  approved  as  to  form 2,957 

Number  of  contracts  revised  and  returned  for  correction. .  353 
Number  of  advertisements  for  bids,  etc.,  approved  as  to 

form   720 

Number  of  bonds  approved  as  to  form 576 

Number  of  leases  approved  as  to  form 187 

Number  of  releases  approved  as  to  form 42 

Number  of  agreements  approved  as  to  form 29 

Number  of  deeds  approved  as  to  form 7 

Total 4,871 


SCHEDULE  8. 

Opinions  Rendered  to  the  Various  Municipal  Officers  and 
Departments  During  the  Year. 


Department. 


Number  of 
Opinions 
Rendered. 


Finance  Department 1,034 

Borough  Presidents  131 

Department  of  Water  Supply,  Gas  and  Electricity. . .  102 

Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment 63 

Police  Department 54 

Board  of  Education  51 

Department  of  Taxes  and  Assessments 29 

Fire  Department   25 

Dock  Department  23 

Department  of  Charities 18 


95 


Department. 


Number  of 
Opinions 
Rendered. 


Mayor    i8 

Department  of  Buildings 17 

Park  Department  17 

Municipal  Civil  Service  Commission 16 

Bellevue  and  Allied  Hospitals 15 

Department  of  Bridges 14 

Street  Cleaning  Department 14 

City  Clerk 13 

Bureau  of  Licenses 10 

Board  of  Assessors 9 

Brooklyn  Grade  Crossing  Commission 9 

Health  Department   9 

Board  of  Aldermen 8 

Board  of  Water  Supply 7 

City  Chamberlain 7 

Department  of  Public  Works 5 

Aqueduct  Commissioners   , 5 

Department  of  Correction 5 

Board  of  Elections 4 

Attorney-General    4 

Register   3 

Sinking  Fund  Commissioners 3 

County  Clerk w . . . .  2 

Tenement  House  Commission 2 

Register,  Kings  County 2 

Board  of  Rapid  Transit  Railroad  Commissioners. ...  2 

Board  of  City  Magistrates 2 

Bureau  of  Franchises 2 

Armory  Board 2 

Bureau  of  Weights  and  Measures 2 

Trustees,  College  of  the  City  of  New  York i 

State  Board  of  Tax  Commissioners i 


96 


Number  of 
Department.  Opinions 

'  Rendered. 

Board  of  Examiners i 

District  Attorney  i i 

Board  of  County  Canvassers i 

Court  House  Board i 

Richmond  County  Agricultural  Society i 

Board  of  Atlantic  Avenue  Improvement i 

Total 1 ,766 

I  will  call  particular  attention  to  only  three  items  in  the 
foregoing  recapitulation.  The  first  is  the  large  number  of  actions 
tried  and  appeals  argued — an  ever  increasing  part  of  the  work ; 
the  second  is  the  number  of  opinions  rendered  and  contracts 
approved — the  largest  in  the  history  of  the  department ;  the  third 
is  the  small  number  and  amount  of  judgments  against  the  City — 
the  smallest  (as  I  have  elsewhere  stated)  since  the  time  of 
consolidation. 

General  Siunniary  for  Entire  Laiv  Department. 

Of  the  25,440  actions  pending  in  the  main  office  a  con- 
servative estimate  of  the  number  in  which  some 
action  was  taken  during  the  year  1906  is 8,000 

The  proceedings  handled  by  the  Street  Opening  Bureau 

numbered 419 

Proceedings  handled  by  Bureau  of  Penalties 30,000 

Proceedings  handled  by  Bureau  of  Arrears  of  Personal 

Taxes    30,000 

Proceedings  handled  by  Tenement  House  office 12,805 

^  The  total  number  of  actions  and  proceed- 
ings handled  by  all  parts  of  the  de- 
partment force  during  1906  was  there- 
fore approximately 81,224 


97 

Statistics  are  sometimes  misleading  and  figures  may  conceal 
as  well  as  reveal  the  facts,  but  in  the  foregoing  summary  an 
honest  effort  has  been  made  to  give  the  best  obtainable  informa- 
tion, so  that  the  person  who  reads  this  report  may  form  a  fair 
idea  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  duties  of  the  office  of  the 
Corporation  Counsel. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is  a  difficult  matter  to 
reduce  the  work  of  a  law  office  to  mathematical  tables  and 
schedules.  The  work  on  individual  cases  and  important  opinions 
cannot  be  measured  or  tabulated  and  sometimes  one  difficult 
proceeding — for  instance  a  large  condemnation  proceeding  or 
the  action  now  being  tried  to  set  aside  the  8o-cent  gas  bill — 
will  require  more  time,  effort  and  ability  than  a  thousand  routine 
proceedings.  But  an  inspection  of  the  foregoing  summary  should 
convince  the  reader  that  the  Law  Department  of  The  City  of  New 
York  is  unquestionably  the  largest  law  office  in  the  country,  and 
that  means,  I  presume,  in  the  world,  and  that  it  should  always  be 
maintained  upon  a  standard  which  will  make  it  a  pattern  and 
example  to  other  municipalities. 

NEEDS  OF  THE  DEPARTMENT. 

A  year  ago  the  Law  Department  had  two  great  needs — proper 
accommodations  for  the  general  office  and  more  assistants.  The 
first  need  has  been  most  generously  provided  for,  but  the  second, 
through  no  fault  of  the  municipal  authorities,  still  exists. 

Over  two  years  ago  my  predecessor  recognized  the  necessity  for 
several  extra  assistants,  not  young  men  or  students,  but  experienced 
lawyers,  who  could  share  with  the  senior  assistants  the  more 
important  parts  of  the  office  work.  The  men  needed  could  not 
be  obtained  from  the  Civil  Service  lists,  because  lawyers  of  the 
required  ability  and  experience  would  not  enter  a  Civil  Service 
examination,  and  it  was  necessary  that  these  new  assistants  should 
be  selected  because  of  their  special  knowledge  of  certain  subjects. 
But  the  number  of  assistants  who  might  be  employed  without 
Civil  Service  examination  had  been  limited  by  the  Civil  Service 


98 

Rules  to  seventy-five,  and  my  predecessor  accordingly  made  an 
application  to  the  State  Civil  Service  Board  to  increase  the  number 
of  "exempt"  assistants  to  one  hundred.  The  application  was  ap- 
proved by  the  Municipal  Civil  Service  Commission  and  the  Mayor, 
but  was  disapproved  by  the  State  Civil  Service  Board. 

Feeling  that  the  State  Civil  Service  Board  had  acted  without 
fully  comprehending  the  conditions,  I  renewed  the  application  to 
increase  the  number  of  assistants,  fixing  ninety  as  the  necessary 
limit  for  the  present.  On  this  occasion,  as  on  the  former  one, 
the  Civil  Service  Reform  Association  appeared  and  opposed  the 
application,  upon  the  ground  that  the  number  of  exempt  positions 
was  already  sufficient.  The  application  has  again  been  denied  in 
a  memorandunr;  in  which  the  State  Board  suggests  that  the  force 
of  Assistants  may  be  increased  by  appointments  from  the  Civil 
Service  lists. 

In  my  judgment  the  placing  of  any  considerable  part  of  the 
force  of  Assistants  in  the  Law  Department  under  the  Civil  Service 
rules  would  be  a  menace  rather  than  an  advantage  to  the  City,  since 
it  would  tend  to  retain  in  office  persons  of  little  or  no  ability,  who 
could  not  be  removed  except  upon  charges,  and  whose  places 
could  only  be  filled  by  appointments  from  the  Civil  Service  lists. 

No  Civil  Service  examination  can  be  devised  which  will  be  any 
test  of  the  qualities  needed  in  an  Assistant  in  this  Department. 
Every  Assistant  is  to  some  extent  a  Deputy  of  the  Corporation 
Counsel.  He  is  in  effect  often  independent  counsel  for  the  City 
in  some  of  the  most  important  litigation  that  comes  before  the 
Courts.  There  should  be  no  Civil  Service  restrictions  upon  the 
choice  of  Assistants  by  the  head  of  the  Law  Department.  There 
is  no  more  reason  for  subjecting  such  men  to  Civil  Service  rules 
than  legislators,  judges  or  private  counsel  for  litigants. 

To  criticize  the  motives  of  the  State  Board  in  refusing  its  ap- 
proval of  the  plan  submitted  to  it  would  be  as  idle  as  it  might  be 
unjust.  Earnest  supporters  of  Civil  Service  reform  have  ever 
before  them  the  numerous  instances  in  the  past  of  the  abuse 
of  the  power  of  appointment,  and  are  inclined  to  regard  any 


99 

application  for  relaxation  of  its  principles  as  not  made  in  good 
faith.  This  attitude  of  mind  has  its  advantage  for  public  interest, 
but  I  cannot  help  concluding  that  the  City  in  this  instance  must 
suffer  from  it. 

What  seems  to  be  even  more  discouraging  is  that  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  City  can  prevail  against  this  sentiment.  There 
is,  therefore,  nothing  to  be  done  except  to  strive  to  use  the  force 
at  our  command  to  the  best  possible  advantage  in  the  City's 
service. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  while  I  have  seventy-five  As- 
sistants, thirteen  of  them  are  engaged  in  the  Street  Opening 
Bureau,  nine  in  the  Brooklyn  office,  five  in  the  Bureau  of  Pen- 
alties, four  in  the  Tenement  House  branch,  and  two  in  the 
Personal  Tax  Bureau,  leaving  only  forty-two  in  the  main  office. 
Of  these  forty-two  Assistants,  four  are  constantly  employed  on 
Appellate  Court  work,  three  in  condemnation  proceedings,  four 
in  tax  certiorari  proceedings,  two  in  contract  cases,  three  in  the 
"gas  litigation"  and  franchise  cases,  six  in  accident  cases,  two 
in  "affirmative"  actions,  two  on  Board  of  Education  cases,  one 
is  permanently  assigned  to  the  Mayor's  office,  and  during  part 
of  the  year  one  is  engaged  in  legislative  work  at  Albany.  Most 
of  the  remaining  fourteen  Assistants  are  engaged  to  some  ex- 
tent on  special  work  where  they  have  acquired  considerable 
experience,  and  there  are,  therefore,  not  men  enough  available 
to  take  up  new  matters  which  demand  prompt  attention. 

The  practical  result  of  the  denial  of  my  application  for  leave 
to  appoint  more  Assistants  is  that  much  work  of  an  important 
character  does  not  receive  the  prompt  attention  that  I  desire  it 
should  have,  and  there  is  no  force  available  to  take  up  the  large 
and  ever  increasing  arrears  of  business.  Had  my  application 
been  granted,  I  could  have  perfected  my  plans  for  office  or- 
ganization and  could  have  devised  some  system  for  bringing  the 
arrears  of  work  of  the  Department  more  nearly  up  to  date. 


ICO 

Conclusion. 

The  foregoing  is  a  brief  history  of  the  Law  Department,  an 
outline  of  the  present  general  organization  of  the  Department 
and  a  recapitulation  of  the  work  for  the  year  1906.  I  cannot 
close  this  report,  however,  without  adding  this  personal  word  in 
relation  to  the  office  staflf.  I  have  been  deeply  gratified  by  the 
earnest,  hearty  co-operation  on  the  part  of  my  Assistants  and 
heads  of  bureaus;  I  have  appreciated  the  industry  and  faithful- 
ness of  the  clerical  force  and  subordinates,  and  I  have  found 
throughout  the  department  a  loyalty  to  the  head  of  the  office 
and  a  devotion  to  duty  which  I  am  glad  in  this  public  manner  to 
acknowledge. 

Yours  respectfully, 

WILLIAM  B.  ELLISON, 

Corporation  Counsel. 


M202976 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRJWY 


I 


I 


